Ask The Pilot

[flychrisfly]

Going across the Pacific there are a few more islands in the way. In particular, Easter Island can handle a 767 and likely a 787 as well.

Is IPC really a viable diversion port? Maybe there is a small section of the route where it's the closest port... Mercator projections can be very deceiving

 

[PaulST]

It would basically be a decision to throw the aircraft away, but there seem to be a number of runways that might work...to a degree anyway.

Why would the aircraft be lost? I've seen C17s and A320s fly around there. Would the issue be that they'll struggle to pull it up and it'll probably end up in some snow?

Thanks.

 

[Himeno]

Is IPC really a viable diversion port? Maybe there is a small section of the route where it's the closest port... Mercator projections can be very deceiving
View attachment 38739

Play around with the options on gcmap. You can change the projection type and add ETOPS ranges.
Great Circle Mapper

 

[RooFlyer]

On a recent flight MEL-BKK we had reached cruising altitude (after midnight), going across NW Australia and had a smooth ride. Suddenly there was a patch of high frequency turbulence for about 10 seconds, of the nature I don't think I've ever experienced. Felt like we were driving down a road, then hit about 100m of corrugations. Seat belt light came on immediately, but nothing else felt after that.

No doubt it could be anything, and just one of those turbulence things, but does this short, high frequency disturbance describe any particular phenomenon? Wake turbulence came to my mind but I would hope that we wouldn't be that close to another other plane's course for it to feel that intense.

 

[jb747]

Why would the aircraft be lost? I've seen C17s and A320s fly around there. Would the issue be that they'll struggle to pull it up and it'll probably end up in some snow?

Both are aircraft that are appreciably smaller, and easier to stop than the heavies that we are talking about. The upshot is that you could well get away with it....but you would not try unless not doing so was a worse alternative.

 

[jb747]

On a recent flight MEL-BKK we had reached cruising altitude (after midnight), going across NW Australia and had a smooth ride. Suddenly there was a patch of high frequency turbulence for about 10 seconds, of the nature I don't think I've ever experienced. Felt like we were driving down a road, then hit about 100m of corrugations. Seat belt light came on immediately, but nothing else felt after that.

No doubt it could be anything, and just one of those turbulence things, but does this short, high frequency disturbance describe any particular phenomenon? Wake turbulence came to my mind but I would hope that we wouldn't be that close to another other plane's course for it to feel that intense.

Sounds like a bit of cloud...

They either didn't see it coming, or thought they'd be above it, or that it would have less effect. It's not a precise science.

 

[PaulST]

Both are aircraft that are appreciably smaller, and easier to stop than the heavies that we are talking about. The upshot is that you could well get away with it....but you would not try unless not doing so was a worse alternative.

Understood - thanks.

 

[mjt57]

JB, presumably you've read about UAL's diversion to CBR due to debris on the runways at SYD?

If so, given that Canberra is further south from Sydney, how much fuel would've been burnt flying there compared to being put into a holding pattern so they could clear the affected runway?

Certainly, from a PR perspective, stranding 100s of pax on a runway isn't a good look.

 

[jb747]

JB, presumably you've read about UAL's diversion to CBR due to debris on the runways at SYD?

Well, I must admit that my first thought was 'so what, they have more than one runway'. How long would it have taken to look at just the intersection?

If so, given that Canberra is further south from Sydney, how much fuel would've been burnt flying there compared to being put into a holding pattern so they could clear the affected runway?

There would be nothing in it. A transit would burn the same amount of fuel as a hold (of the same duration). Aircraft coming from the USA can have very marginal amounts of fuel available, and a sudden holding requirement is likely to be problematic. I often wonder if ATC actually understand this, or think that the fuel is somehow beamed up to us.

Certainly, from a PR perspective, stranding 100s of pax on a runway isn't a good look.

Perhaps not. Canberra is being a bit cute though, saying that the airline could have arranged customs, etc, whilst not giving a time frame. Plus the luggage wouldn't have been unloaded...etc, etc. Interesting that the crew ran out of hours so soon. We normally have a reasonable margin on the LA-Sydney flights.

I also wonder at the people who thought being without food for a couple of hours was so bad. Surely it wasn't long after breakfast...

 

[kpc]

Is IPC really a viable diversion port? Maybe there is a small section of the route where it's the closest port... Mercator projections can be very deceiving
View attachment 38739

The runway at IPC was extended by NASA as an emergency landing option for the space shuttle. A chartered Concord also landed (and took off) there

 

[harvyk]

Perhaps not. Canberra is being a bit cute though, saying that the airline could have arranged customs, etc, whilst not giving a time frame. Plus the luggage wouldn't have been unloaded...etc, etc. Interesting that the crew ran out of hours so soon. We normally have a reasonable margin on the LA-Sydney flights.

Just on the subject of hours, I completely agree that mandated maximum hours is important in the aviation industry, that said should there be wiggle room for when true irrops happen (at non company airports), or should the airlines still be forced to get new pilots?

 

[Boris spatsky]

Just on the subject of hours, I completely agree that mandated maximum hours is important in the aviation industry, that said should there be wiggle room for when true irrops happen (at non company airports), or should the airlines still be forced to get new pilots?

There is wiggle room already built into the regs (both ours and the US regs - noting that UA fly to FAA rules). It is only a matter of a few hours max though. The fatigue rules are there for a reason.

 

[ChrisGibbs]

JB747 - I was a passenger on Wednesday nights 10th Dec QF12 A380 LAX-SYD service arriving into SYD on Friday morning (the same morning the UA SFO-SYD flight diverted to CBR). Just prior to our descent into SYD the tech crew advised that SYD was down to one runway for take off and landings as the remaining runway had been closed for runways works and we would required to hold for some time. During the hold the Flight Map updated to show our destination as being Brisbane and our landing time pushing out to being just under an hour. Very soon after this the Captain came back on the PA to advise that we had moved up the priority and would be continuing our approach into SYD for a landing onto 16R about 20 minutes later than originally scheduled. When there are runway works delays and / or weather delays that restrict arrivals into SYD (or MEL, BNE for that matter) do the long haul flights get priority over the domestic short haul flights for landing slots? Does QF12, QF10, QF2, QF16 get priority over similar length flights from other carriers like UA, DL, EK, etc? When considering a diversion why would you pick CBR as a destination as opposed to say MEL or BNE which would have the facilities to handle. For the A380 on the LAX - SYD or LAX - MEL sector would your SYD alternates be limited to BNE and MEL or SYD and BNE as alternates for MEL?

Another question regarding the roster of the A380 tech crew. I've done the SYD-LAX-SYD QF11/12 rotation three times over the last 2 months and had Capt John Gandon (sp?) as the skipper on three out of my last six A380 sectors. Do some tech crew get more of a % of the available sectors than others or is it just a coincidence that you run into the same tech crew more often than others?.

Thanks in advance.

 

[jb747]

I was a passenger on Wednesday nights 10th Dec QF12 A380 LAX-SYD service arriving into SYD on Friday morning (the same morning the UA SFO-SYD flight diverted to CBR). Just prior to our descent into SYD the tech crew advised that SYD was down to one runway for take off and landings as the remaining runway had been closed for runways works and we would required to hold for some time. During the hold the Flight Map updated to show our destination as being Brisbane and our landing time pushing out to being just under an hour. Very soon after this the Captain came back on the PA to advise that we had moved up the priority and would be continuing our approach into SYD for a landing onto 16R about 20 minutes later than originally scheduled.

The route changing on the displays would mean that the crew had loaded that into the active route of the FMC. They could load it into one of the secondary routes, and it wouldn't display down the back. It's so easy to change, that it's really dealer's choice as to which way you do it.

When there are runway works delays and / or weather delays that restrict arrivals into SYD (or MEL, BNE for that matter) do the long haul flights get priority over the domestic short haul flights for landing slots?

No. Australia has a habit of being 'fair'...which actually means that everyone is screwed equally.

Does QF12, QF10, QF2, QF16 get priority over similar length flights from other carriers like UA, DL, EK, etc?

See above..though it is quite obvious at times that this is not the way it works in some countries. Until recently all of the ultra long haul flights were allowed to carry slightly less ATC holding fuel, but, for the sake of 'fairness', that too has disappeared.

When considering a diversion why would you pick CBR as a destination as opposed to say MEL or BNE which would have the facilities to handle.

I would only go to Canberra if the alternative were running out of fuel. Actually, Canberra, Newcastle (and Avalon) are only available to us in an emergency.

For the A380 on the LAX - SYD or LAX - MEL sector would your SYD alternates be limited to BNE and MEL or SYD and BNE as alternates for MEL?

Basically, Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne are the only ones we consider. If the winds have been extremely favourable, Adelaide might get into the mix. Remember though, that carriage of an alternate to destination is not required on most days...i.e. you can't go to destination and then divert. On a recent flight ATC increased their holding requirement to 40 minutes (from 20), after we had departed. That was very nearly enough to force a diversion, even though the weather was benign.

Another question regarding the roster of the A380 tech crew. I've done the SYD-LAX-SYD QF11/12 rotation three times over the last 2 months and had Capt John Gandon (sp?) as the skipper on three out of my last six A380 sectors. Do some tech crew get more of a % of the available sectors than others or is it just a coincidence that you run into the same tech crew more often than others?.

It's a combination of both. LA flights are denser (i.e. you fly more credited hours per day than a London flight, which means you have less days away per roster), so they are popular with the very senior (aka Pacific Barons). Whilst there is a limit, the reality is that no system will share anything equally. With the recent advent of the Melbourne base, you'll now find a different group of names will be cropping up out of there...the people who used to do those flights will find many of them allocated to Melbourne based people in preference to Sydney (or Brisbane commuters).

 

[Himeno]

If you got near LHR/DFW only to find the London/Dallas area airports out of action and you ended up at say CDG, BRU, AMS or IAH, would you expect the same sort of "issues" that the UA flight had at CBR?

 

[garee]

Re: United Airlines stranded at immirationless Canberra (Another thread)

http://www.australianfrequentflyer....stranded-immirationless-canberra-64841-5.html

I think we need a pilots view on this. Most of the posts seem to be speculating.

How much fuel would/should they have available? Does the choice of CBR indicate very little fuel?
What are the rules on crew hours and I assume the reason the new crew did not leave SYD until 3pm was they had to have a set no of hours from their previous flight?

If QF or VA ended up in CBR would they have the same problems.

Is UA mostly at faulty of CBR.




​

 

[anat0l]

No. Australia has a habit of being 'fair'...which actually means that everyone is screwed equally.

I assume this means, "Stuff your problems - get back in line".

I would only go to Canberra if the alternative were running out of fuel. Actually, Canberra, Newcastle (and Avalon) are only available to us in an emergency.

Basically, Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne are the only ones we consider. If the winds have been extremely favourable, Adelaide might get into the mix. Remember though, that carriage of an alternate to destination is not required on most days...i.e. you can't go to destination and then divert. On a recent flight ATC increased their holding requirement to 40 minutes (from 20), after we had departed. That was very nearly enough to force a diversion, even though the weather was benign.

As an alternative to diverting - and the recent UA flight in question might also fall into this - what if the crew decided to declare an emergency (low fuel related) or keep circling and then declare an emergency, in order to coerce being allowed an immediate (or upgraded) landing slot at the impaired SYD?

I assume there are some ethical issues with this.

 

[Himeno]

As an alternative to diverting - and the recent UA flight in question might also fall into this - what if the crew decided to declare an emergency (low fuel related) or keep circling and then declare an emergency, in order to coerce being allowed an immediate (or upgraded) landing slot at the impaired SYD?

I assume there are some ethical issues with this.

There were some flights at US airports where the pilot didn't like the runway given by ATC for the landing so declared and emergency and forced ATC to give them the runway they wanted.

 

[Boris spatsky]

Re: United Airlines stranded at immirationless Canberra (Another thread)

http://www.australianfrequentflyer....stranded-immirationless-canberra-64841-5.html

I think we need a pilots view on this. Most of the posts seem to be speculating.

How much fuel would/should they have available? Does the choice of CBR indicate very little fuel?
What are the rules on crew hours and I assume the reason the new crew did not leave SYD until 3pm was they had to have a set no of hours from their previous flight?

If QF or VA ended up in CBR would they have the same problems.

Is UA mostly at faulty of CBR.




​

The FAA rules for crew duty vary and are complex, but in a nutshell are:
13-19 hours from start of duty (sign on, not takeoff) to 'on blocks'. 19 hours is with 4 pilots and bed rest facilities, and it gets shorter with lower standard rest facilities, less pilots, or early or very late starts. Once in flight, an extension can be granted by the Captain for 30 minutes only.

Without knowing the UA setup, it is impossible to know what hours they were working to. It would be safe to say though that after 1.5 hours flight planning, 14 hours or so flying, and 3 hours waiting at Canberra for UA to decide what to do, they were out of duty.

 

[mjt57]

Actually, Canberra, Newcastle (and Avalon) are only available to us in an emergency.


.

Can you actually get an A380 into Newcastle???