Ask The Pilot

[clazman]

At what point do you get the latest weather reports for the arrival airport?

How far out can you get them and do you get inhouse weather updates on route from a QF control center?

 

[jb747]

At what point do you get the latest weather reports for the arrival airport?

How far out can you get them and do you get inhouse weather updates on route from a QF control center?

There are a couple of types of weather report. Terminal area forecasts (TAFs) have long duration, and we'll get them before a flight, as well as update them periodically during the flight. They can be overruled by TTFs (Trend Type Forecasts) which are a report of the actual conditions (METAR), with a short term prediction attached (the TTF). They will have a duration of either 2 or 3 hours depending upon the country. An ATIS is the actual terminal conditions, and it's generally updated every half hour or so, or if there is a change.

We can only use the TAF or TTF for our go/divert decisions.

The weather is available from many HF and VHF stations around the world, but we usually get it by sending an ACARS request. The company will occasionally send updates if the forecast has deteriorated, though almost always we already have that information.

Whilst we look at destination weather periodically during a flight, it's only really of interest in the last couple of hours, when the TTF will become relevant, and when we have to make decisions. Prior to that, we're much more interested in the weather at possible en route diversion airfields.

 

[Flying Fox]

During the approach, the crosswind was 72 knots at 3,000 feet...but it was reducing, and some people were landing. Eventually I decided that they were working to different limits than me, so I went around. As we did so, the SO called that Stansted was now outside limits. And so we diverted to Amsterdam.

Can you please enlighten me as to what happens now that you have landed your A380 in Amsterdam?

Specifically, what is done with the passengers & crews; how does the A380 get back to LHR for its return flight from LHR to AUS with regards to crew etc?

Does QF have an account with Amsterdam airport for fuel, landing costs etc?

Many thanks

 

[mikenz]

Apologies if this has been asked previously.

Do QF have pilots / other crew based anywhere other than Australia? ie would they have a london-based crew for the LHR-DBX legs?

 

[jb747]

Apologies if this has been asked previously.

Do QF have pilots / other crew based anywhere other than Australia? ie would they have a london-based crew for the LHR-DBX legs?

There are no pilots based overseas, but cabin crew bases in London and Auckland. Used to be one in Thailand too.

 

[jb747]

Can you please enlighten me as to what happens now that you have landed your A380 in Amsterdam?

Specifically, what is done with the passengers & crews; how does the A380 get back to LHR for its return flight from LHR to AUS with regards to crew etc?

It was a 747... There were other aircraft diverting, and most were terminating, presumably with crews running out of hours. We had a window of about 3 hours, but we also needed the weather to improve a bit. Biggest issue was that now that we were on the ground, within Europe, they applied the local slots to us, and the first one they offered was in around 6 hours. We used BAs engineers to get the aircraft refuelled, and eventually managed to negotiate a slot that we could use.

An issue that added to the delay was that one passenger, who was already afraid of flying, was totally freaked by the go around, and wanted to get off. We had to convince her otherwise, as that would have stopped us entirely.

When we did get going, we arrived in London with more heavy rain about to arrive from the south (within minutes), but, as it was dry at that moment, the 35 knot limit applied, and we were able to land. If the rain had beaten us, then it would have been off to Manchester. It obviously gets very messy, with a crew needed to pick up the aircraft from wherever it happens to be. Passengers would be flown/bussed/accommodated as needed.

Does QF have an account with Amsterdam airport for fuel, landing costs etc?

They have standing arrangements at many places. If somewhere else, then you just have to wing it.

 

[RooFlyer]

Does QF have an account with Amsterdam airport for fuel, landing costs etc?

<snip>

They have standing arrangements at many places. If somewhere else, then you just have to wing it.

.. as long as you, and not Mr Joyce, get the points when you have to wave the corporate AMEX

 

[legroom]

That is called wisdom which comes from experience added to years of training.

I would have been quietly pleased.

Aviation is dynamic, and that particular morning fitted that description nicely.

The weather forecast had winds of up to 35-40 knots from the south, in passing rain. The 747 crosswind limit is 35 knots...reducing to 25 knots when wet.

The plan was to have a look, and divert to Stansted if necessary. Stansted's runway alignment is more southerly, so it was not forecast to get near the crosswind limits.

During the approach, the crosswind was 72 knots at 3,000 feet...but it was reducing, and some people were landing. Eventually I decided that they were working to different limits than me, so I went around. As we did so, the SO called that Stansted was now outside limits. And so we diverted to Amsterdam..

Walking around the cabin I was somewhat stunned by the reaction of some of the passengers, who happened to know that airline X had landed just ahead of us, and wanted to know why we hadn't. At the point that I went around, I would not have guaranteed even hitting the runway, much less staying on it. I guess that's the sort of weather I describe as interesting.

 

[QF WP]

Aviation is dynamic, and that particular morning fitted that description nicely.

The weather forecast had winds of up to 35-40 knots from the south, in passing rain. The 747 crosswind limit is 35 knots...reducing to 25 knots when wet.

The plan was to have a look, and divert to Stansted if necessary. Stansted's runway alignment is more southerly, so it was not forecast to get near the crosswind limits.

During the approach, the crosswind was 72 knots at 3,000 feet...but it was reducing, and some people were landing. Eventually I decided that they were working to different limits than me, so I went around. As we did so, the SO called that Stansted was now outside limits. And so we diverted to Amsterdam..

Walking around the cabin I was somewhat stunned by the reaction of some of the passengers, who happened to know that airline X had landed just ahead of us, and wanted to know why we hadn't. At the point that I went around, I would not have guaranteed even hitting the runway, much less staying on it. I guess that's the sort of weather I describe as interesting.

In that kind of weather, I'd have been happy to have the pilot land anywhere he felt he was capable of landing - hopefully well away from any risk. Were those conditions at 3,000 feet the worst in which you've flown??

 

[jb747]

In that kind of weather, I'd have been happy to have the pilot land anywhere he felt he was capable of landing - hopefully well away from any risk. Were those conditions at 3,000 feet the worst in which you've flown??

Not by a long shot, but it was the crosswind to a wet runway that ultimately forced the go around. The biggest crosswind that I recall was in Hong Kong, approaching 25R (at the new airport). On that day at about 3,000 feet the wind was all crosswind, and it was up to 100 knots. But, the positives on that occasion were that it was daylight, and we were clear of cloud, plus the wind was from our right, which meant it was not coming over the island, and so was surprisingly smooth. The wind reduced pretty well linearly to the runway, and we landed with 38 knots...exactly the 767-300 limit.

Winds that are much stronger than at the surface are very common.

 

[Craigie]

I'm interested in where you regard your personal limits could be.

I understand this goes against safety culture and you wouldn't consider doing it for real.. But for hypothetical reasons..

You had a comfortably laden but passenger free 767/747/380. You had a competent co pilot. There was a 1 runway with a heavy consistent crosswind that wasn't gusting dramatically. It was a clear day apart from the crosswind. How strong could the wind be and you'd still feel you'd be able to get it on the ground?

I understand the manufacturers put limits on the aircraft but disregarding them as these are obviously within airframe breaking limits.

 

[RooFlyer]

What is the actual danger when landing with high (say, over limit but not extreme) crosswinds and a wet runway? I'm not intimating I can't see any, but wondering physically what might happen? (Wing strike, loss of control on ground contact ... )

 

[jb747]

I'm interested in where you regard your personal limits could be.

I understand this goes against safety culture and you wouldn't consider doing it for real.. But for hypothetical reasons..

You had a comfortably laden but passenger free 767/747/380. You had a competent co pilot. There was a 1 runway with a heavy consistent crosswind that wasn't gusting dramatically. It was a clear day apart from the crosswind. How strong could the wind be and you'd still feel you'd be able to get it on the ground?

I understand the manufacturers put limits on the aircraft but disregarding them as these are obviously within airframe breaking limits.

The answer will vary. If I've done a few of these recently, then I'd feel happier doing them. That's why the 767 guys were always so good at crosswind landings...they got a lot more practice (and their aircraft was more responsive). I've operated both the 767 and the 747 right to the maker's limitations, and was happy doing so, but gusts, rain, time of day will all reduce that comfort limit.

The A380 has a limit of 40 knots. I've only been to about 30, and to be quite honest, I'm not super keen on going beyond that. Why? Firstly the flight control system does not seem to give as fine a level of roll control as the manual systems on the 767/747. The aircraft switches to 'flare law' at 100', which gives direct control of pitch, but roll remains in normal law...so there can be an element of fighting the computers if you're after very fine roll adjustments.

But, the biggest advantage that the Boeings have over Airbus in this context is that they (Boeings) can be landed will ALL of the drift intact. In fact, in some circumstances, that's the recommended method. So, you don't need to straighten the aircraft just before touchdown...that's optional. AB on the other hand have a 5º drift limit. If you watch video of crosswind landings going awry, pretty well always, it's because the drift is corrected either too soon, or too rapidly.

As an aside, I was once talking to a pilot from an Asian airline, and I asked him about their crosswind limits. His response was that they treated the Boeing limits as recommendations only. I wish I was that good.

 

[jb747]

What is the actual danger when landing with high (say, over limit but not extreme) crosswinds and a wet runway? I'm not intimating I can't see any, but wondering physically what might happen? (Wing strike, loss of control on ground contact ... )

On a wet runway, especially if you haven't got the alignment exactly correct, there's a danger of simply going off the side of the runway. Worth noting too, that in a crosswind, reverse thrust tends to pull you downwind...and also off the runway. Think about it for a second...crosswind limits can be as much as 80 kph..and I'm sure you'd not be happy going sideways in your car at that speed (or even a small part of it).

Wing or engine strike is also a danger (as shown in the Lufthansa A320 video on youtube).

One of the hardest crosswind events to handle is one that people don't think of all that much. If you do the approach with (say) 20 knots of crosswind from one side, and, in the last few feet, it swaps sides...it's very interesting. Not at all uncommon if you've got a headwind of about 35-40 knots that keeps moving about 30º either side of its average direction.

 

[WheelieBagWanderer]

As an aside, I was once talking to a pilot from an Asian airline, and I asked him about their crosswind limits. His response was that they treated the Boeing limits as recommendations only. I wish I was that good.

Wow. Must be a lot of "good" pilots out there, JB! I'm glad you didn't post which airline they worked for, or they might be off my "happy to fly" list. Ignorance is bliss sometimes as a passenger, I guess.

As my uncle (who was a L-1011 and then 747 pilot with CX for many years) said to me once: "There are old pilots.... and there are bold pilots.... but there are very few old, bold pilots".

In all likeliness very true!

 

[docjames]

Hi jb747, any idea what specific training will occur for the retirement flight of the 747 to Illawarra?

I assume familiarisation with the area, runway, but anything else specific to this landing? Rapid shut down of outboard engines to prevent ingestion of material (assuming the runway is narrower than standard?

Thanks as always for this thread. The crosswind discussion has been interesting.

 

[thelittlechef]

I see in the news today a Russian bomber flight near the UK caused regular traffic to have diversions to their route. The Russians were flying without a transponder, would you be able to "see" them? What is the difference in performance of active and passive (not sure of the correct nomenclature)radar onboard? Would you be aware of why the diversion was happening, or would it have been just one of many ATC requests during a flight?

 

[jb747]

I see in the news today a Russian bomber flight near the UK caused regular traffic to have diversions to their route. The Russians were flying without a transponder, would you be able to "see" them? What is the difference in performance of active and passive (not sure of the correct nomenclature)radar onboard? Would you be aware of why the diversion was happening, or would it have been just one of many ATC requests during a flight?

It's appallingly stupid of the Russians.

If they don't have their transponder running the TCAS won't see them. The radar almost certainly won't. It's just using the 'big sky' theory, and hoping for the best.

 

[defurax]

It's appallingly stupid of the Russians.

If they don't have their transponder running the TCAS won't see them. The radar almost certainly won't. It's just using the 'big sky' theory, and hoping for the best.

Stupid question...can the military aircraft detect the transponder signals from other aircraft or the TCAS system only works if all aircraft are emitting/receiving?
Also, Americans, Chinese and Russians have been (or are thought to have been) developing stealth aircraft during the past 50 years. What is there to protect civilian aircraft from these military toys? Altitude? Fly mostly outside of commercial "corridors"?

 

[jb747]

Stupid question...can the military aircraft detect the transponder signals from other aircraft or the TCAS system only works if all aircraft are emitting/receiving?

The military can receive anything a civil aircraft is transmitting....so yes, they almost certainly know where the airliners are. That still isn't necessarily a reasonable defence. TCAS manoeuvres generally involve both aircraft.

Also, Americans, Chinese and Russians have been (or are thought to have been) developing stealth aircraft during the past 50 years. What is there to protect civilian aircraft from these military toys? Altitude? Fly mostly outside of commercial "corridors"?

Nothing...you just have to hope they behave whilst playing with their toys.