Ask The Pilot

[Boris spatsky]

Come on Boris, I'm sure you could add to the complication....

Yep, i am sure i could. I'll pitch in when they start talking about rotary wing aerody, just to confuse them

 

[Boris spatsky]

How do you think you would go flying a C152 now where you do get any help

I did some aerobatics in a Robin for a few years. I enjoyed it but ultimately it was to let friends see the joy (or not ) of aerobatics. It's hard work to stay 100% on top of single engine emergencies (to the level i was comfortable with) when you only fly them once every 3 months. I gave it up due to that fact as well as the cost.

 

[Boris spatsky]

For JB and Borris - do you guys actually know each other? As in coffee together in the staff canteen so to speak?

No, we have never met.

 

[moa999]

JB/Boris,

Some interesting comments on the Plane Talking blog by "Confirmed Sceptic" who I believe is a A320 shorthaul pilot somewhere in Asia (merely inferring this)

On this blog re QZ8501 in particular posts #29-31
Plausible yet incompatible claims arise over AirAsia crash | Plane Talking

Some interesting comments are made re the Airbus systems and training.
Notably
- the warning that the Aircraft has reverted to Alternate law are tiny (versus the rest of the display and the consequential behaviour of the aircraft)
- there is very little in the manuals about what to do when protections are triggered / alternate introduced
And I think a suggestion that a reversion to Alternate law in an already stressed situation is probably downright dangerous to a pilot who has only ever flown an automated aircraft

 

[mikenz]

Flights arriving into Sydney seem to head directly at the airport before then joining a circle towards the landing approach. Why don't they fly directly to the beginning of the landing approach?

Fying from AKL to SYD a few years ago the pilot announced that we had been asked by SYD ATC to slow down. I noticed that eventually we landed with no flaps, I suppose because we already had low enough airspeed. Is this normal? Would there be any issues with a go around when landing with no flaps?

 

[flychrisfly]

I flew out of JFK last week and we took off from 4L on a BA 747. It appeared that we used full flaps for the take off, as there were at least 3 steps to full retract them rather than the usual 2. After turning right and heading a fair way out to sea thrust was increased and we picked up speed. I am assuming this configuration and take-off plan was for noise abatement - would I be correct? Any idea?
Thanks.

 

[alieninperth]

I saw this over the last few days and wanted some professional opinions on it. Was the BA pilot right or ATC, and was ATC right to get annoyed https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uWg7IpphPc8

 

[straitman]

Yep, i am sure i could. I'll pitch in when they start talking about rotary wing aerody, just to confuse them

As will I.

 

[straitman]

For JB and Borris - do you guys actually know each other? As in coffee together in the staff canteen so to speak?

jb and I have know each other for around 35 years though no contact for many years prior to this forum.

 

[Boris spatsky]

As will I.

All yours straitman. I find rotary aerody confusing enough myself!

 

[defurax]

Hi JB,
Was there a change to the last roster you posted in November? I saw you were scheduled to fly QF93 on the 4th, but somehow posted a message here 2 hours after take off...

I'm on QF93 today. Any chance you have traded with a colleague to operate today's service instead?

 

[jb747]

Hi JB,
Was there a change to the last roster you posted in November? I saw you were scheduled to fly QF93 on the 4th, but somehow posted a message here 2 hours after take off...

I'm on QF93 today. Any chance you have traded with a colleague to operate today's service instead?

I swapped the 93 on the 4th for the one on the 5th.

 

[defurax]

I swapped the 93 on the 4th for the one on the 5th.

Missed by one day again...
I should fly more

 

[jb747]

Some interesting comments are made re the Airbus systems and training.
Notably
- the warning that the Aircraft has reverted to Alternate law are tiny (versus the rest of the display and the consequential behaviour of the aircraft)

As he says, the indication on the AI is small, and easily overlooked. It will also be display on the EICAS, but only as a consequence of the failure that put you there in the first place.

Direct law is worse, in that 'USE MANUAL PITCH TRIM' is placed on the PFD, but again it will likely be subsumed by the failures that got you there in the first place. Worse than that, the pitch trim is a control on the centre pedestal, that does nothing other than gather dust normally, so even finding it in a dark coughpit, when you need it in a hurry, isn't necessarily simple. In most aircraft the pitch trim is under your thumb...and there is plenty of room for a 'coughed hat' switch to have been placed on the sidestick. The AB also has no pilot activated roll trim, which doesn't matter most of the time, but which would be a great deal of use in any mode reversion, as the aircraft is unlikely to end up correctly trimmed laterally. Those of you who have flown will know how instructors always rattle on about trim. Flying an aircraft that is out of trim, for any length of time, is extraordinarily tiring...which increases the danger when the approach is eventually down.

- there is very little in the manuals about what to do when protections are triggered / alternate introduced

Very little is generous. I don't think there is any. You have to remember their design motto..."It will not happen". QF72 was caused by the protection systems. The aircraft dropped itself to alternate law, and solved the problem. It's worth noting that there was a very recent Lufthansa incident in which the stall protection initiated a push down that could not be overridden. The crew were smart enough to think of their own way out, but again, you need to find two switches on the overhead panel that are rarely used. As a procedure, what they did was never in the books.

Airbus could have provided an easy way to force law changes without needing to fail something, but they resist any thought that such an action would be better than their planned behaviour. Remember "It will not happen".

And I think a suggestion that a reversion to Alternate law in an already stressed situation is probably downright dangerous to a pilot who has only ever flown an automated aircraft

You need to be careful about this statement. The reversion is happening because the aircraft feels that it does not have some of the information needed to give normal or alternate law. In that circumstance you most certainly need the reversion. Alternate (and direct) law is no worse than flying a conventional aircraft, which, for want of a better term, is always in direct law. The issue is that these aircraft a being sold as a way of addressing the shortfall in pilot skills. That comes from a number of issues...the desire to reduce it to 'bus driving', so that you can push wages down; the ending of some of the traditional pilot sources (GA is basically dead, and the military much smaller than it used to be); the rise of university aviation courses, that push theory over practice. Historically most people who started pilot training failed...I saw a comment from an Australian school that does cadet training saying that 95% of their students pass....this isn't a good thing...the training is supposed to cull out those who are not suited, not to lower the bar until they get through.

Back in 1985 or so, when Airbus made the A320, the made some design decisions that still taint everything they make. The sidesticks are not interconnected. They have no trim control on the sidestick. The thrust levers are not driven and simply sit in gates most of the time. In making these decisions, they decided not to build on all that had come before, but to start with a clean design sheet. Whilst this can be a good thing, all of the above decisions have been major factors in aircraft losses over the year. But, as they will never admit to going down the wrong alley.

A pilot who has never flown other than an automated aircraft is not a pilot. There are thousands out there, and the number is increasing. And they are on aircraft made by all of the manufacturers.

 

[jb747]

Flights arriving into Sydney seem to head directly at the airport before then joining a circle towards the landing approach. Why don't they fly directly to the beginning of the landing approach?

Yes..... You need some form of 'gates' to establish the flows, but the tracks towards Sydney have always bemused me. Melbourne too, has some very indirect flying. Presumably politicians of various colours live under some of the other tracks.

Fying from AKL to SYD a few years ago the pilot announced that we had been asked by SYD ATC to slow down. I noticed that eventually we landed with no flaps, I suppose because we already had low enough airspeed. Is this normal? Would there be any issues with a go around when landing with no flaps?

How do you know there were no flaps?

It would be extremely unusual, and would need much higher approach speeds. Flapless landings in jet aircraft is an emergency procedure only.

 

[jb747]

I saw this over the last few days and wanted some professional opinions on it. Was the BA pilot right or ATC, and was ATC right to get annoyed https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uWg7IpphPc8

As always, a bit of a mix. He isn't fully ready if he hasn't done his checklist....

 

[harvyk]

You need to be careful about this statement. The reversion is happening because the aircraft feels that it does not have some of the information needed to give direct law. In that circumstance you most certainly need the reversion. Alternate (and direct) law is no worse than flying a conventional aircraft, which, for want of a better term, is always in direct law. The issue is that these aircraft a being sold as a way of addressing the shortfall in pilot skills. That comes from a number of issues...the desire to reduce it to 'bus driving', so that you can push wages down; the ending of some of the traditional pilot sources (GA is basically dead, and the military much smaller than it used to be); the rise of university aviation courses, that push theory over practice. Historically most people who started pilot training failed...I saw a comment from an Australian school that does cadet training saying that 95% of their students pass....this isn't a good thing...the training is supposed to cull out those who are not suited, not to lower the bar until they get through.

Back in 1985 or so, when Airbus made the A320, the made some design decisions that still taint everything they make. The sidesticks are not interconnected. They have no trim control on the sidestick. The thrust levers are not driven and simply sit in gates most of the time. In making these decisions, they decided not to build on all that had come before, but to start with a clean design sheet. Whilst this can be a good thing, all of the above decisions have been major factors in aircraft losses over the year. But, as they will never admit to going down the wrong alley.

A pilot who has never flown other than an automated aircraft is not a pilot. There are thousands out there, and the number is increasing. And they are on aircraft made by all of the manufacturers.

Just out of interest, I know that for the most part, desktop simulators are nothing more than a game. That said I started playing around with them as a kid in the late 80's, and have been doing so ever since. Some of the most fun things I used to do was deliberately get myself into "trouble", eg engine failures, stalls, over speeds etc and then try and get myself out of trouble before hitting the ground.

One of the things I was reading in the Air France 447 reports was one of the pilots continued pulling the side stick up during a stall, and the comment was made in the report (it was a lay mans report) that "it might seem counter intuitive but the course of action should have been to push the side stick down". But to me after spending countless hours mucking around in sims it hardly seems counter intuitive, that's how I'd get myself out of stalls on said sims. (yes I realise there is a big difference between sitting comfortably on a couch doing this, and sitting in a pilots seat of an actual plane)

So I guess the question is, these 200 hour co-pilots coming through, do you have any idea as to what their skills might have been prior to actually stepping into a coughpit? Do you know how detailed their basic flying techniques actually are? Or is it simply a case of "press this button to start the plane, press this button to stop it, press this button to make the plane follow the pre-determined course".

 

[mikenz]

How do you know there were no flaps?

It would be extremely unusual, and would need much higher approach speeds. Flapless landings in jet aircraft is an emergency procedure only.

I was sat in the window seat looking at the back of the wings, and the person sat next to me said "that's unusual".
Maybe there was an emergency that we didn't know about. In any case, we landed safely.

 

[markis10]

Yes..... You need some form of 'gates' to establish the flows, but the tracks towards Sydney have always bemused me. Melbourne too, has some very indirect flying. Presumably politicians of various colours live under some of the other tracks.



How do you know there were no flaps?

It would be extremely unusual, and would need much higher approach speeds. Flapless landings in jet aircraft is an emergency procedure only.

The tracks have not really changed for a long time and are essentially Navaid ie Bindook direct to SYD where on approach to Sydney the aircraft joins the circuit. This has nothing to do with politicians and their locale and everything to do with backups, having aircraft on defined airways when control reverts to procedural is a good thing.

 

[por930]

Those of you who have flown will know how instructors always rattle on about trim. Flying an aircraft that is out of trim, for any length of time, is extraordinarily tiring...which increases the danger when the approach is eventually down.

How so true..When I did my PPL in the 70's when I lived in the Isa, the training instructors(several by the way were QANTAS cadets) always banged on about trim. When I eventually went onto instrument training, I recall my instructor(ummm Geoff Markwell QANTAS??) said, "now you see why trim is so important, if correctly trimmed, you are no longer fighting for control and it gives you time to think ahead of the aircraft.

I suppose JB, there are no more QANTAS cadets learning their trade on air charters and training, prior to piloting the large aircraft. Great grounding for airman ship that books don't provide.