Ask The Pilot

[Hvr]

Re: Ask the pilot

Well, that would have cut me out a week ago .

Is it universal or uniquely Australian?

Has anyone ever challenged it on age discrimination grounds? It seems contrary to the general principle of skill and health defining whether one is up to the task.

Yes it has been challenged and lost. The definitive case is:
[h=2]Qantas Airways Ltd v Christie [1998] HCA 18; 193 CLR 280; 72 ALJR 634; 79 IR 120; 152 ALR 365 (19 March 1998) [/h]
A precis is here: australia
It is near the bottom of the page under the heading, "Intersting cases".

The High Court found in Qantas’ favour on the basis of the second argument – that is, it was an inherent requirement of a pilot’s position to be able to fly over countries which were signatory to the Convention.

This decision is important because it establishes the principle that the ability to perform the inherent requirements of the position is not limited to being able to psychically perform the duties. The Court held that the ability to perform the inherent requirements of the position also required the employee to do the job within the particular operational setting of the employer.​

 

[por930]

Re: Ask the pilot

Yes it has been challenged and lost. The definitive case is:
Qantas Airways Ltd v Christie [1998] HCA 18; 193 CLR 280; 72 ALJR 634; 79 IR 120; 152 ALR 365 (19 March 1998)


A precis is here: australia
It is near the bottom of the page under the heading, "Intersting cases".

​

Umm, seems like at the end of the day, the 60 years of age, 'international' rule and the complications of the bidding system, coupled with several other operational 'factors' makes it pretty clear. The 60 years of age restriction was later increased to 65 years of age....

https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avi...line_safety/info/all_infos/media/age65_qa.pdf

This has some examples of the 60+ with a <60 year pilot.​

 

[Princess Fiona]

Re: Ask the pilot

Yes it has been challenged and lost. The definitive case is:
[h=2]Qantas Airways Ltd v Christie [1998] HCA 18; 193 CLR 280; 72 ALJR 634; 79 IR 120; 152 ALR 365 (19 March 1998) [/h]
A precis is here: australia
It is near the bottom of the page under the heading, "Intersting cases".

​

Goodness me
I hope the pilot isn't flying the aircraft as a clairvoyant
"This decision is important because it establishes the principle that the ability to perform the inherent requirements of the position is not limited to being able to psychically perform the duties."​

 

[mjt57]

Re: Ask the pilot

You cannot remain an international Captain after your 65th birthday.

Thing is, would anyone really want to, either as a domestic or international pilot?

Since they raised the age to 65 have more pilots opted to run their careers to 65?

I'm a few years away from that, but as a passenger I struggle with the international travelling more and more. Yet, I don't fly more than once a year. I dunno how you guys do it, to be honest.

Maybe the FOs and SOs can do it standing on their heads, being younger and all that.

Crikey, even normal shiftwork is becoming a chore and for the first time in my career I'm actually looking forward to retirement, or even an opportunity to go onto daywork.

 

[jb747]

Re: Ask the pilot

Thing is, would anyone really want to, either as a domestic or international pilot?

Since they raised the age to 65 have more pilots opted to run their careers to 65?

Well, obviously more than before they raised the age limit. If anything there's more of a spread of retirements now. Some go right on 60. Quite a few around 62... The number wanting to go beyond 65 seems low, but they are there. Paying for the 5th wife I think....

 

[Captain Halliday]

Re: Ask the pilot

JB, the ATSB released a report today into a flap overspeed and altitude exceedance at CNS (AO-2012-116). The event occurred during a go around. The crew were VFR to RWY15 and had set 1,500 as the go around altitude. After reporting the go around to the TWR they were instructed to climb to 2,000.

My questions are, is 1,500 the published altitude for a VFR missed approach at CNS?

If so, why 1,500 considering the significant terrain to the ESE of the field?

Clearance is obviously not an issue if you can turn left to 060 (what seems to be the standard departure route from RWY15) but presumably a go around is a high workload phase and a prompt turn may not always be possible.

 

[jb747]

Re: Ask the pilot

JB, the ATSB released a report today into a flap overspeed and altitude exceedance at CNS (AO-2012-116). The event occurred during a go around. The crew were VFR to RWY15 and had set 1,500 as the go around altitude. After reporting the go around to the TWR they were instructed to climb to 2,000.

My questions are, is 1,500 the published altitude for a VFR missed approach at CNS?

There is no published VFR missed approach procedure. VFR is VFR...you're in the circuit. If you want a published procedure, then fly one of the instrument approaches.

If so, why 1,500 considering the significant terrain to the ESE of the field?

Because if you're visual, you're expected to look out the window, and avoid the hills.

Clearance is obviously not an issue if you can turn left to 060 (what seems to be the standard departure route from RWY15) but presumably a go around is a high workload phase and a prompt turn may not always be possible.

The instrument procedure also includes an immediate left turn.

But, the biggest difference between this case, and the instrument go around, is the level off altitude. In the instrument go around, the level off altitude is 3,700 feet. So, the procedure will be TO/GA, flap 3, call the annunciations, positive climb - gear up. At about 1,000 feet, pull the levers back to CLB. Don't start the clean up until the aircraft is pointed to the NE, so pull speed to stop it accelerating. If you get to 3,700 feet before completing the turn, it will capture the altitude, and the thrust will reduce to maintain your set speed. You could also put a speed into the FMC, to minimise the acceleration.

If you're going to do it visually, you are effectively joining the circuit. Same start, pull to CLB at 1,000'. At ALT* pitch to hold level, and call for FLAP 1 and 'activate approach phase' (an FMC mode that will cause the auto thrust to target flap speeds).

It's simple enough...as long as you get the thrust out of TO/GA or MCT. If it stays in either of those modes, you will have no auto thrust, and an overspeed will follow very quickly. If you run out of ideas, you could even do something very novel...pull the levers back and take manual control of the thrust. It is, after all, only an aircraft.

There is nothing unusual about 1,500' or 2,000'. Note the ATC clearance was "not above 2,000 ft", not 2,000' specifically.

The reengagement of the autopilot, in a visual circuit, seems unnecessary.

Low level level off, whether from a go around, or take off, is always very busy, and full of traps. The aircraft are invariably light, and at TO/GA, extremely powerful.

It's not addressed in the report, but I'd be interested in just how they came to be outside of the slot and ended up needing the go around. It really sounds like it was going wrong before the G/A.

 

[por930]

Re: Ask the pilot

Looking at the report,on page 1...they do not discuss why the a/c was not in the slot, only that it was not....
"Initiation of the go-aroundAt 0921:57, while the aircraft was nearing 2,300 ft above mean sea level, the first officer
disconnected the autopilot and commenced manually flying the approach to runway 15. At about
500 ft, the captain assessed that the aircraft was marginally high on the approach and instructed
the first officer to go around. The captain later reported that the approach was ‘nicely flown’ but
that the first officer unintentionally allowed the rate of descent to reduce during the later stages"

I presumed the captains role is monitoring the whole approach and not just near the decision height? I noticed from the report, when things were really going wrong on the climb out, the captain took back control, and when stabilised, handed back control to the FO, who carried out the visual circuit and landing.

JB, You as captain, in this sort of instance, if you are monitoring your FO controlling the a/c on descent, would you wait till the approach was unrecoverable and declare a go around, or advise the FO of the slightly high approach earlier?

 

[jb747]

Re: Ask the pilot

JB, You as captain, in this sort of instance, if you are monitoring your FO controlling the a/c on descent, would you wait till the approach was unrecoverable and declare a go around, or advise the FO of the slightly high approach earlier?

I wouldn't let it get high. It's not just monitoring. You're still the Captain, and the aim is to show the passengers a landing, not a go around. If that means issuing orders (not suggestions) to the FO, or even taking it back, then so be it. Reading between the lines, the disconnect at 2,300 feet is relatively early. When people run out of ideas with the automatics, they commonly disconnect, at which point the entire problem often becomes worse. The approach is not 'nicely flown', if it does not end at a point from which you can land.

Having said all of that...the issue of people getting thrust management wrong in the Airbus (in particular) but the Boeings as well, is common during go arounds. For that reason, both have 'soft' go around modes. The Boeing always default to power sufficient for a 2,000 fpm rate of climb on the first push of the GA buttons, and TO/GA on the second. The Airbus has a soft mode that is engaged by going to TO/GA, and then back to MCT...but I don't know if the Jetstar aircraft have it installed.

 

[blu]

Re: Ask the pilot

Quick question after flying on QF2 (Row 18) - the A380 handles turbulence differently to B747? Passing over Sri Lanka/Bay of Bengal we had quite a long period of turbulence (as expected).
The aircraft noticeably "porpoised" it's way through - like a boat rising & dropping over ocean swells. I found that a bit disconcerting.
My recollection of the Boeing was more like a hard shaking, but maitaining horizontal stability.

 

[Gold Member]

Re: Ask the pilot

JB, thanks again for your hospitality aboard and allowing me up front for a tour of the coughpit and to meet the crew on QF9 this morning. It certainly made a pleasant flight all the more enjoyable. Looking forward to my next flight with you!

 

[jb747]

Re: Ask the pilot

Quick question after flying on QF2 (Row 18) - the A380 handles turbulence differently to B747? Passing over Sri Lanka/Bay of Bengal we had quite a long period of turbulence (as expected).
The aircraft noticeably "porpoised" it's way through - like a boat rising & dropping over ocean swells. I found that a bit disconcerting.
My recollection of the Boeing was more like a hard shaking, but maitaining horizontal stability.

It's very difficult to compare, simply because you are never in the different aircraft, but in the same bit of turbulence. Some turbulence shears laterally, some vertical, and the aircraft behave differently each time. If anything, the A380 fuselage feels more rigid, and has a sharper movement, but that's difficult to quantify.

 

[blu]

Re: Ask the pilot

Thanks JB (next flight will be on QF22 UD).

 

[por930]

Re: Ask the pilot

JB, This was a tragic set of circumstances...Air NZ pilot collapses after landing Dreamliner | Stuff.co.nz

In your training, do you train for this? If this had occurred a few seconds before flare, would the captain not flying have had time to take over? Does he hover waiting for just such an occurrence, or would it have been a #$%^&*()hell, Immediate yank on the column and full power go around while he sorted things out. It seems she was on a check ride with 4 captains on board. Amazing she kept it together to complete the landing.

 

[jb747]

Re: Ask the pilot

JB, This was a tragic set of circumstances...Air NZ pilot collapses after landing Dreamliner | Stuff.co.nz

In your training, do you train for this? If this had occurred a few seconds before flare, would the captain not flying have had time to take over? Does he hover waiting for just such an occurrence, or would it have been a #$%^&*()hell, Immediate yank on the column and full power go around while he sorted things out. It seems she was on a check ride with 4 captains on board. Amazing she kept it together to complete the landing.

I read about that...a sad outcome for what should have been the high point of a career.

Training captains have to take the aircraft back off trainees every now and then, and they themselves train for just that case. So, if it started to go wrong, you'd expect a reasonably seamless transfer. Line captains take aircraft off the autopilot, or the FO, occasionally. If anything, it's easier in the Airbus, because you can have your hand on the sidestick without affecting the other pilot's inputs. It should require no 'yanking' nor would it necessarily require a go around.

Of course we do sometimes see the results of the failure to take the aircraft when things are going awry (Asiana-SFO, Turkish-AMS, Singair-MUC)...but it generally happens without anyone even noticing.

 

[jb747]

Re: Ask the pilot

New roster time...

QF 9 22/11
QF 9 25/11
QF 2 27/11
QF10 30/11

QF93 07/12
QF94 08/12

QF93 20/12
QF94 21/12

QF93 04/01
QF94 05/01

QF93 10/01
QF94 11/01

 

[Awesom Andy]

Re: Ask the pilot

New roster time...

So off work for Xmas this year?

 

[jb747]

Re: Ask the pilot

So off work for Xmas this year?

Yes, my wife is very pleased.

The change of character of the roster is a consequence of my changing bases from Sydney to Melbourne. This next roster is the first time QF will have had Melbourne based 380 Captains (FOs and SOs have been there for over a year).

 

[Quickstatus]

Re: Ask the pilot

JB what are the pros and cons of basing yourself in a certain city. I assume MEL is also your city of domicile.

Pros and Cons of being based in a city (not of domicile)?


Also can yo tell us what Tech and cabin crew do during a layover?. Are there strict company rules regarding sleep times?

 

[jb747]

Re: Ask the pilot

JB what are the pros and cons of basing yourself in a certain city. I assume MEL is also your city of domicile.

It was, but not any more. To be honest, from where I now live, it's a toss up as to whether it would be better to have stuck with the Sydney base, and simply have bid for Melbourne trips. Melbourne can be easily driven, but Sydney has many more air connections.

The pros of living in a place are all about the city itself, and whatever your family wants. It's always less convenient with regard to work.

Pros and Cons of being based in a city (not of domicile)?

The negatives are simply that you have to fly to work for every trip, and you have to make sufficient allowance in timing that to handle weather, busy periods, etc. Upshot is that you often have to come up the night before, and find your own accommodation. There are times when nights at home are a bit precious, so more away isn't a positive.

Blank lines pretty well require you to be in the based port for most of the time. They can be boring and relatively expensive (both less income, and more outgoing).

The biggest positive is the simple fact that you don't have to live in Sydney. Now, I may not even have to operate there any more. Excellent.

Also can yo tell us what Tech and cabin crew do during a layover?. Are there strict company rules regarding sleep times?

Varies enormously. Short slips (24 hours or so) very little. Try to catch up on sleep you missed, or put some in the bank. Gym is popular. If there is sufficient time, you might try to see whatever tourist sites are available. Slips are a good place to prepare for sims. I hike many miles in interesting places like London.

I don't think the company can mandate sleep. There are CASA rules for that anyway....but, it's common (on some sectors the norm) for crew to have been unable to sleep before a flight. Pills are mostly banned, and trying to sleep at odd times rarely works.