Ask The Pilot

  • Thread starter Thread starter NM
  • Start date Start date
  • Featured
Upset recovery training is now mandated by CASA as an event in recurrent cyclic simulator sessions. The last ones i did included nose high, nose low with varying airspeeds and varying angle of bank. Extreme attitudes are included (140 degrees angle of bank which is almost inverted) etc.

No automation is used to recover from unusual attitudes - in fact a lot of the time if you found yourself in one then it would most likely be inattention to what the autopilot was doing (or what you thought it was doing) that got you there in the first place.

Sometimes simply applying full control deflection won't recover the situation; further, under some situations (nose low/high speed) being aggressive with your control inputs can cause greater issues (inducing stick shaker or damaging the aircraft if applying rolling G). In some severe instances a combination of control inputs, trim and power changes are required to recover. For example, nose high but very slow may require you to roll on angle of bank to bring the nose down as full forward stick and forward trim may not respond fast enough to prevent stalling.

These events are very dynamic. I don't personally believe that an autmoated system could be designed to reliably recover 100% of the time without inducing greater issues.

I think the training concept is good but it has taken a long time to be mandated by CASA - thankfully we did a lot of it in the military and were tested on it frequently from day one.
A good example of this is one of my first RAAF students was a commercial pilot with about 2000 hrs experience.

As you would expect was way above average in most sequences. When it came to IF unusual attitude training he really struggled and was actually worse off than most until he got his head around the concept. He later went on and flew C130s though unfortunately I have now lost touch with him.
 
jb, when a pilot has been promoted from being a FO on international legs in the A380, to a domestic captain in a 737, a real workhorse of the skys, where next for this guy if he stays with QF? Is it usual to retain Captain status as you progress through the fleet? Would this pilot's next career move be into the international arena..maybe captain of a 330 should he want international sectors again? And I suppose the ultimate...A380 captain

Movement across types and ranks is a function of the company needs, and your, and your compatriots, bidding.

Generally, once you've managed to get four bars (or three), you don't go backwards. Sadly that's not been the case lately, as the 767 and 747 retirements have led to many demotions, and transfers to smaller types.

But, in the normal course of events, our 737 Captains next move would be to a bigger aircraft. Whether it's to the 330, mythical new aircraft, or 380, will depend on many variables.
My progress was 747 SO, 747 FO, 747-4 FO, 767 Capt, 747-4 Capt, 380 Capt. That's pretty much the classical progress. But I have friends who joined as 767 SO, moved to 767 FO, then 767 Capt, and retired from there. A 747 FO could choose to bypass the 737 and wait for a 330 slot. There's a different route for just about everyone.
 
A simple question but I noticed yesterday that QF 11 and 15 diverted from LAX due to fog to Ontario ( in LA) . I assume both planes need to refuel to some degree, to fly onto LAX , but when would they actually refuel ? At the end of delay when you know how long you have to fly or at some time during the wait and taking an educated guess ( I wanted to use the words experienced estimate :-)) as to how long the delay will be. Also in a case like this would one of the pilots do a walk around to check the plane ?
 
A simple question but I noticed yesterday that QF 11 and 15 diverted from LAX due to fog to Ontario ( in LA) . I assume both planes need to refuel to some degree, to fly onto LAX , but when would they actually refuel ? At the end of delay when you know how long you have to fly or at some time during the wait and taking an educated guess ( I wanted to use the words experienced estimate :-)) as to how long the delay will be. Also in a case like this would one of the pilots do a walk around to check the plane ?

The aircraft have minimum fuel loads, which would probably have been adequate to fly over to LA. The low vis approaches were rendered out of service by the unfortunate erection of some cranes...which should not have been up if those approaches were going to be required.

A preflight is always carried out.
 
A simple question but I noticed yesterday that QF 11 and 15 diverted from LAX due to fog to Ontario ( in LA) . I assume both planes need to refuel to some degree, to fly onto LAX , but when would they actually refuel ? At the end of delay when you know how long you have to fly or at some time during the wait and taking an educated guess ( I wanted to use the words experienced estimate :-)) as to how long the delay will be. Also in a case like this would one of the pilots do a walk around to check the plane ?

Appears a few others were diverted as well Qantas and Virgin land at little-used airport due to LA fog
 
QF93 must have been just far enough behind to not need to divert as there's no mention in the SMH article or on qantassource....
 
It may not have the traffic of LA, but it's quite a major airfield. It's regularly used in our diversion planning.

From what I've heard, the authorities got themselves organised in time to get the cranes lowered by the time the 93 arrived.

JB was this a stuffup by the airport. Inadvertent perhaps?
 
JB was this a stuffup by the airport. Inadvertent perhaps?

I don't know the details... It sounds like they were doing scheduled work, and didn't realise that the early morning arrivals, and fog, would need some action. Aircraft just stuff up nice quiet airports.

Fog in Dubai this morning too, with various airlines dropping in to odd spots around the place. We held for about an hour before doing a auto land. The layer was from about 80 feet up to 200 or so.
 
I don't know the details... It sounds like they were doing scheduled work, and didn't realise that the early morning arrivals, and fog, would need some action. Aircraft just stuff up nice quiet airports.

Fog in Dubai this morning too, with various airlines dropping in to odd spots around the place. We held for about an hour before doing a auto land. The layer was from about 80 feet up to 200 or so.

JB whats a successful autoland?. Can an autoland be unsuccessful but still result in the plane landing and arriving at the gate? Is it correctly assumed that a pilot can land the aircraft any which way he/she deems it necessary or does a pilot have to declare the method of landing?
 
JB whats a successful autoland?. Can an autoland be unsuccessful but still result in the plane landing and arriving at the gate? Is it correctly assumed that a pilot can land the aircraft any which way he/she deems it necessary or does a pilot have to declare the method of landing?

A successful auto land is one in which the aircraft lands itself. Some failures, mainly in practice auto lands, can be addressed by disconnecting the autopilot and doing the landing yourself, but in 'actual' conditions any failure below 1,000 feet will result in a go around.

Most common issue with practice auto lands is that the ILS paths may not be protected by ATC (i.e. aircraft and vehicles are allowed to move into positions that can distort the beams). When the conditions call for these landings though, ATC will keep traffic further away from the runways to alleviate this.

In some automatic landings you don't need to see the runway at all...this sort of stuff can't be done manually. Auto land systems handle smooth conditions like fog very well. Conversely, they are normally not all that good in gusty/windy conditions, and their limits will be less than can be accepted for manual flying.
 
Last edited:
Read our AFF credit card guides and start earning more points now.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

JB747 we do aviation as a hobby.... what do you do to charge the batteries?

The range of things that the guys do is as wide as it is with any group...though with the difference that we all know how to fly, so there's quite a few who own their own aircraft, many of them warbirds. The old Soviet trainers are quite popular.

Perhaps to my wife's relief, I don't do any private flying, nor do I collect old cars...though I like new ones. For the last couple of years, my house has occupied a lot of my time. Now that that's complete, I guess I can go back and do some more photography.
 
My progress was 747 SO, 747 FO, 747-4 FO, 767 Capt, 747-4 Capt, 380 Capt.

jb, It seems like you did a thorough apprenticeship on the 747 to get to the left seat. What was your thoughts when you first stood underneath the big girl as a junior SO on your first flight?
I presume your initial flight training for the 747 was in the simulator? Did you get any hands on actual flight training before going on the line as SO?

When you converted over to the 767 as Captain, how did it feel to be there as your first captaincy? With low on type flight hours compared with your FO, who would probably had more hours on type than you. Did you find yourself listening to their greater on type experience when thinking about a flight plan? A few pilot friends say the 767 was(is) a great airplane to fly.
 
Last edited:
jb, It seems like you did a thorough apprenticeship on the 747 to get to the left seat. What was your thoughts when you first stood underneath the big girl as a junior SO on your first flight?
I presume your initial flight training for the 747 was in the simulator? Did you get any hands on actual flight training before going on the line as SO?

The initial training was about 4 months long. Looks like a month of ground school, then about 60 hours in the sim. Then 3 flights. I didn't actually touch the aircraft until the first flight after I'd come on line. Remember that I had a pretty solid background, so the systems weren't alien to me. There were just more of them. The operation itself was what you really need to learn. At that point in time, the minimum hours for them to even answer an application letter was 1,000.

The promotion course to FO was longer overall. Only a couple of weeks of ground school (same aircraft after all), and then about the same number of hours in the sim. This time though, we actually flew the aircraft. I did 4 hours (over 5 trips) flying circuits at Avalon. And then 150 hours of line sectors. They actually count the sectors (30), not the hours, so the hours could vary quite dramatically.

The -400 training was quite different, as the aircraft was brand new, and there was basically nobody already flying it. This time the training was only a month. A week of ground school, then 8 sim sessions (32 hours). Then an observation sector Sydney-Melbourne-Sydney. That was it. Next time I set foot in the aircraft, I was the FO. In the early days, they spent more time showing you how to covert it back into a -300 than they did worrying about the fancy features. Worked quite well, as it was really only a 747 after all.

Command training and the 767 conversion were combined. They also exist as separate courses. 16 sims this time, though a couple occurred during the line flying. Another hour of circuits, this time at Amberley....so the introduction the the 767 is very light weight, doing circuits...fun. 3-4 sectors with a safety FO, then about 20 more sectors with normal crewing. At the end of that group of about 25 (about 100 hours), you did two checks, each of 6 sectors and totalling about 60 hours (of checks!). Then they let you loose...but another check would be scheduled 90 days down the road. At the end of all of that, you were pretty relaxed with the aircraft/operation. Second trip was to San Francisco! The 767 was a demanding aircraft. It was a delight if you were flying it well, but not everyone loved it.

When you converted over to the 767 as Captain, how did it feel to be there as your first captaincy?
Good.

With low on type flight hours compared with your FO, who would probably had more hours on type than you. Did you find yourself listening to their greater on type experience when thinking about a flight plan?

The FOs you flew with for the first couple of trips were restricted to 'experienced', though that only meant that they had a least a few months more time on the aircraft than you. You were also not permitted to allow FO take offs or landings for about 10 sectors. Basically you would have more experience than them at pretty well everything, bar the aircraft itself. Of course that still exists when you fly any type that's new to you. Ask questions as you need, and listen if they say something isn't normally done.

A quote I recall from the bloke who did my final check..."All this does is show that we think you are safe, and heading in the right direction. You'll need to go out and teach yourself how to be a Captain."

Just adding up some of the numbers from my log...I've done about 560 flying hours of designated training in QF alone. And across every course...just under 1,100 hours.
 
Last edited:
In your flight time, what has been the greatest advancement in pilot tools / systems that you think has improved flying
 
In your flight time, what has been the greatest advancement in pilot tools / systems that you think has improved flying

I've seen things that have improved, and degraded, flying. FBW is a great innovation, but the Airbus application of it degrades flying skills much more than the Boeing version.

TCAS has probably saved a huge number of lives. GPS based terrain avoidance systems likewise.
 
The range of things that the guys do is as wide as it is with any group...though with the difference that we all know how to fly, so there's quite a few who own their own aircraft, many of them warbirds. The old Soviet trainers are quite popular.

Perhaps to my wife's relief, I don't do any private flying, nor do I collect old cars...though I like new ones. For the last couple of years, my house has occupied a lot of my time. Now that that's complete, I guess I can go back and do some more photography.
More details please. :)

I've just returned home from test driving a Polo GTI. Great little car although I've got my eyes on a Golf GTI (just gotta convince the bank...)
 
I've just returned home from test driving a Polo GTI. Great little car although I've got my eyes on a Golf GTI (just gotta convince the bank...)

I'm very partial to the VW stable of cars. The Golf is an extremely practical car, with a tardis like ability to hold more stuff than you'd imagine.

They have had real issues with the dual charged cars, but the new Polo is using a version of the GTi engine, and should make a great fun little car. I've considered the GTi a couple of times. I came close back in 2007, but opted for an R32 instead. Next time I looked at an R, but went for an Audi Q5 (the boss's car at the time). Last time I looked at what is the current model, but I was more interested in the new R. And again I went Audi, but for an S3.
 
Are we all talking about cars now ? I just luuuurvvv my eg…. :-)

Hand up … ….Can I please ask a supplementary question that was overlooked in the previous answer to my questions ?

Given the limited time frame available .. is the acquisition of sufficient hands on control and useable attitudinal information ...challenging , (a) in sim exercises , (b) in real flight ?
AND ...do the sim exercises, in general, truly replicate the environment of extreme upsets that appear to have/ may have happened of late ?
 

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top