Ask The Pilot

[TomVexille]

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.

Do you remember who did that?

 

[jb747]

Can you actually get an A380 into Newcastle???

Well, it's listed as an emergency alternate, so the runway is suitable. Once it comes to a stop, there might be issues...but then it becomes an SEP.

 

[jb747]

Do you remember who did that?

ATC can't actually force you to do anything. They don't have big robot hand that comes out of the sky and grabs you. If they assign something you don't like, then reject it by simply using the word 'require'. It's not an issue, and controllers hear the term quite regularly, especially with regard to runways.

 

[Quickstatus]

ATC can't actually force you to do anything. They don't have big robot hand that comes out of the sky and grabs you. If they assign something you don't like, then reject it by simply using the word 'require'. It's not an issue, and controllers hear the term quite regularly, especially with regard to runways.

Are pilots and ATC sometimes on first name basis, can pilots inject a bit of " Come on Mate/Jim/Bob/ , fair shake of the sauce bottle" when it comes to unfavourable slot and runway allocation?

 

[markis10]

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?



I often wonder if ATC actually understand this, or think that the fuel is somehow beamed up to us....

There is a reason why you need to put endurance on flight plans, however since operational control has reverted to the operator rather than ATC the onus is with the company and the PIC to meet requirements and be vocal when you cannot. Sometimes it's hard to give absolute priority to the right aircraft, just get the odd air ambulance in the mix going med and suddenly diversions are inevitable if you lose a runway.

 

[TomVexille]

ATC can't actually force you to do anything. They don't have big robot hand that comes out of the sky and grabs you. If they assign something you don't like, then reject it by simply using the word 'require'. It's not an issue, and controllers hear the term quite regularly, especially with regard to runways.

That sounds reasonable. However I'm not sure about declaring an emergency when there actually isn't one.

 

[Quickstatus]

There is a reason why you need to put endurance on flight plans, however since operational control has reverted to the operator rather than ATC the onus is with the company and the PIC to meet requirements and be vocal when you cannot. Sometimes it's hard to give absolute priority to the right aircraft, just get the odd air ambulance in the mix going med and suddenly diversions are inevitable if you lose a runway.

would this not cause the beancounters to pressure a minimum endurance to increase the chance of a favourable ATC response, then everyone does the same to try and game it (within FAA/CASA. Rules)

 

[jb747]

That sounds reasonable. However I'm not sure about declaring an emergency when there actually isn't one.

This isn't declaring an emergency. It's simply (for instance) stating that you require the long runway rather than the short one, or that you want into wind rather than crosswind.

 

[Himeno]

Do you remember who did that?

The big one I heard about was an 767 on LAX-JFK (AA2) in 2010. Winds at JFK required the use of the 22/04 runway pair. 13R/31L was closed for repairs at the time. The pilot wanted 31R to end up closer to T8. ATC assigned 22L.
After threats from the crew trying to force ATC to approve 31R, the captain just declared an emergency and took it.

 

[jb747]

The big one I heard about was an 767 on LAX-JFK (AA2) in 2010. Winds at JFK required the use of the 22/04 runway pair. 13R/31L was closed for repairs at the time. The pilot wanted 31R to end up closer to T8. ATC assigned 22L.
After threats from the crew trying to force ATC to approve 31R, the captain just declared an emergency and took it.

I think I'd need to see the actual report on that before I'd accept it as anything other than internet myth.

 

[Himeno]

I think I'd need to see the actual report on that before I'd accept it as anything other than internet myth.

American Airlines Pilot Argues with Control Tower, Makes Emergency Landing at JFK

 

[jb747]

American Airlines Pilot Argues with Control Tower, Makes Emergency Landing at JFK

Rather poorly handled on both sides of the coin, if we are to believe the story as it's written.

The crosswind would have exceeded the maximum for virtually all aircraft...so trying to use the out of wind runway was a pointless exercise.

In the USA, declaration of minimum fuel means nothing...you have to declare an emergency. Sadly they don't have any steps along the way.

 

[TomVexille]

This isn't declaring an emergency. It's simply (for instance) stating that you require the long runway rather than the short one, or that you want into wind rather than crosswind.

Oh I get the difference

 

[Himeno]

In the USA, declaration of minimum fuel means nothing...you have to declare an emergency. Sadly they don't have any steps along the way.

Isn't that part of the reason for the crash of Avianca 52?

 

[QFflyermelbourne]

Hi JB,

Interested to hear your thoughts on my train of thought below - something which I am sure and would hope was considered by Qantas management over the last few years.

Obviously on the domestic front the retirement of the 767 throws up some significant issues: loss of capacity, the fact that the A330 and 787 have massive wing spans in comparison and can't fit at the terminals in anywhere near the same numbers and can't be turned in the same time.

Despite the fact that the new aircraft are so much more efficient I wonder if on short sectors like MEL-SYD and BNE-SYD you would really notice the difference that much and whether the airline would have been very smart a few years back when receiving delay compensation on the Dreamliner program to have not taken a new fleet of 767s which I assume they could have picked up for next to nothing (ANA seems to have made this work). With all the infrastructure in place, ideal size for terminals, trained pilot group, sims and other support stuff I wonder if the trade-off penalty in extra fuel might have been worth considering. Loaded up with a modern product, these could have been very comfortable aircraft for customers and might have allowed routes like PER-SIN to be sustained with a bird not as big as the A330.

Can you comment on how mad an idea this might have been and make some guesses as to how less efficient they might be in terms of fuel on predominately short domestic sectors and whether the massive saving on new type introductory costs may have made it worth considering. We will never know now of course...

 

[jb747]

Interested to hear your thoughts on my train of thought below - something which I am sure and would hope was considered by Qantas management over the last few years.

Obviously on the domestic front the retirement of the 767 throws up some significant issues: loss of capacity, the fact that the A330 and 787 have massive wing spans in comparison and can't fit at the terminals in anywhere near the same numbers and can't be turned in the same time.

Despite the fact that the new aircraft are so much more efficient I wonder if on short sectors like MEL-SYD and BNE-SYD you would really notice the difference that much and whether the airline would have been very smart a few years back when receiving delay compensation on the Dreamliner program to have not taken a new fleet of 767s which I assume they could have picked up for next to nothing (ANA seems to have made this work). With all the infrastructure in place, ideal size for terminals, trained pilot group, sims and other support stuff I wonder if the trade-off penalty in extra fuel might have been worth considering. Loaded up with a modern product, these could have been very comfortable aircraft for customers and might have allowed routes like PER-SIN to be sustained with a bird not as big as the A330.

Can you comment on how mad an idea this might have been and make some guesses as to how less efficient they might be in terms of fuel on predominately short domestic sectors and whether the massive saving on new type introductory costs may have made it worth considering. We will never know now of course...

The sort of trade offs that you are considering come to the fore every time a new aircraft is considered. Basically, there will be a crossover point with regard to fuel cost (and all of the other costs) vs the cost associated with new aircraft. It would have been the availability of (relatively) cheaper fuel, that made it worth keeping the Classic 747 around. Just where that point is, I certainly don't know.

Those who flew the 767 would probably all agree that the 767-400 would have been a good aircraft for use in Oz. Whether that's really true, or simply the thoughts of people who were fans of the aircraft will never be tested. Smaller, single aisle, aircraft have some pretty massive cost savings associated with them, especially if you end up having periods of the day in which the larger aircraft are not being fully utilised.

Fuel burn differences that might seem small on individual sectors add up to very significant costs.

 

[A100]

Interesting article in the WSJ about a NASA study / examination of single pilot commercial coughpits, with a "co-pilot" located on the ground for busy parts of flight....like a semi-drone I suppose. Not going to happen for a long time, but interested in the pilot's thoughts about this direction of technology. Does seem inevitable at some point....just a matter of when.

Single-Pilot coughpit Idea Floated in NASA Study - WSJ

Extract:
"Facing potential shortages of airline pilots and dramatic advances in automation, industry and government researchers have begun the most serious look yet at the idea of enabling jetliners to be flown by a single pilot.
All large commercial jets for passenger and cargo service world-wide now fly with at least two pilots in the coughpit. A new study by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Rockwell Collins Inc. will focus on the provocative idea that co-pilots could remain on the ground, remotely assisting solo aviators on the flight deck during the busiest parts of flights, said John Borghese, Rockwell’s vice president of its Advanced Technology Center.
Whether the concept will eventually come to fruition depends on political viability and social acceptability as well as technical feasibility. The researchers aren’t endorsing the idea or devising specific plans for single-pilot operation of large commercial jets. Rather, they seek to analyze changes in technology and operations that could make the concept feasible in the future—even if that means as far off as 2030."

 

[jb747]

Interesting article in the WSJ about a NASA study / examination of single pilot commercial coughpits, with a "co-pilot" located on the ground for busy parts of flight....like a semi-drone I suppose. Not going to happen for a long time, but interested in the pilot's thoughts about this direction of technology. Does seem inevitable at some point....just a matter of when.

Single-Pilot coughpit Idea Floated in NASA Study - WSJ

Extract:
"Facing potential shortages of airline pilots and dramatic advances in automation, industry and government researchers have begun the most serious look yet at the idea of enabling jetliners to be flown by a single pilot.
All large commercial jets for passenger and cargo service world-wide now fly with at least two pilots in the coughpit. A new study by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Rockwell Collins Inc. will focus on the provocative idea that co-pilots could remain on the ground, remotely assisting solo aviators on the flight deck during the busiest parts of flights, said John Borghese, Rockwell’s vice president of its Advanced Technology Center.
Whether the concept will eventually come to fruition depends on political viability and social acceptability as well as technical feasibility. The researchers aren’t endorsing the idea or devising specific plans for single-pilot operation of large commercial jets. Rather, they seek to analyze changes in technology and operations that could make the concept feasible in the future—even if that means as far off as 2030."

There is no doubt that levels of automation will increase. But, they have already hit the point at which automation is causing a degradation in pilot skills (and in other cases preventing them from developing in the first place).

It would be a strange world in which the loss of satcom and autopilot would mean loss of an aircraft, but that's where this is headed. In general, when things go wrong (and I doubt that the engineers will ever be able to engineer out all issues), the automatics also have a heart attack.

If you are going this route, why have any pilots at all...an accountants wet dream.

 

[Quickstatus]

JB:
If the designated alternative to a destination has long hold times, does the pilot have to divert to another alternate in case of problems with destination?

Eg LAX-MEL , alternate SYD long hold times due to say fog/weather.

 

[A100]

Thanks jb747. Appreciate your insights as always. Hate to imagine what would have happened with 1 pilot in the coughpit in situations like Qf30/32 and the computers were spewing errors (that's a technical term!)