Ask The Pilot

[QFflyermelbourne]

In general there's not much difference, especially when they are electronically controlled...which tends to mask differences anyway.

The 767-300s with the RR vs the GE...most of us liked the GE better. There was a difference in their idle behaviour that made the aircraft quite different in the flare, and gave us two different landing techniques. Everyone hated the PW, so best not mentioned.

Would the same thing translate flying the RR vs GE 747's too?

 

[jb747]

Would the same thing translate flying the RR vs GE 747's too?

Not to the same extent. Mostly our GEs are the ER aircraft, and they are just nicer all around.

 

[Major]

Have you been measured for your new uniform yet JB ?

New uniform for Qantas pilots coming in 2016 - Australian Business Traveller

 

[jb747]

Have you been measured for your new uniform yet JB ?

New uniform for Qantas pilots coming in 2016 - Australian Business Traveller

As far as we know, it hasn't been designed yet. In any event, the pilots will take years to measure, so with the appropriate delaying tactics, I might be able to avoid it entirely.

 

[RooFlyer]

Have you been measured for your new uniform yet JB ?

New uniform for Qantas pilots coming in 2016 - Australian Business Traveller

Oh no. I keep seeing QF pilots of the future emerge from the cabin with a red slash across the shoulder of their blazer and a rakish pink cravat or tie.

 

[jb747]

Oh no. I keep seeing QF pilots of the future emerge from the cabin with a red slash across the shoulder of their blazer and a rakish pink cravat or tie.

That's what we're afraid of too.

Here is the simple solution..Flight Suits - Military & Pilot Flight Suits, Tactical Jumpsuits, Law Enforcement & EMT Uniforms

 

[AVC]

I keep seeing QF pilots of the future emerge from the cabin with a red slash across the shoulder of their blazer

That's what we're afraid of too.
Here is the simple solution.

I note that some of those Simple Solutions have the red stripe

 

[defurax]

To the pilots here, in all your years of flying have you ever heard of a similar story: Plane with Tomislav Nikolic had emergency landing due to spilled coffee, not engine failure - Bosnia Today

Is this plausible? I guess the problem would be to have a non-tech crew person just wiping the spill without knowing what they are doing?

 

[jb747]

To the pilots here, in all your years of flying have you ever heard of a similar story: Plane with Tomislav Nikolic had emergency landing due to spilled coffee, not engine failure - Bosnia Today

Is this plausible? I guess the problem would be to have a non-tech crew person just wiping the spill without knowing what they are doing?

Plausible enough. Obviously passed the beverages over the centre console instead of around the outside of each seat. A bit of panicky wiping, and partial flap extension wouldn't be too hard to imagine. Big overspeed of flaps.

 

[por930]

To the pilots here, in all your years of flying have you ever heard of a similar story: Plane with Tomislav Nikolic had emergency landing due to spilled coffee, not engine failure - Bosnia Today

Is this plausible? I guess the problem would be to have a non-tech crew person just wiping the spill without knowing what they are doing?

Ummm, wonder what job the culprit is doing now

 

[Craigie]

Pilots, sitting at home in Sydney with no power and it howling outside got me to thinking. Can you remember your shortest take off roll or landing into the wind?

I was watching a show called Alaskan wing men and in one of the episodes they landed a Cessna before the piano keys because the winds were that strong, apparently a local challenge at the airport, I'm wondering if it's as noticeable in the bigger jets?

 

[jb747]

Pilots, sitting at home in Sydney with no power and it howling outside got me to thinking. Can you remember your shortest take off roll or landing into the wind?

Taking off, the shortest I can recall, wasn't so much the length, but the time. A departure from 34R (Sydney), on a very windy day gave us somewhere around 10 seconds from setting the thrust to rotate. But, on those (wind shearing) days we also use maximum thrust, and it was a very light aircraft.

Landing...we generally target an exit point, so the braking is moderated to that aim. It's extremely rare to use the max and see what you end up with. Having said that, I recall landing a 747 SP on 16R (Sydney), and turning off at the intersection with 07/25. Also a landing in a 767 in Wellington, that came to a halt about half way down the runway...which was a bit embarrassing, as we couldn't use the taxiways near that area.

 

[Dmac6345]

Hi Pilots,
Further to this Serbian "emergency" issue. Is it that easy to knock to flaps down a notch when in cruise?
I would have thought it wouldn't allow you to do it in cruise. I guess they don't come fitted with locking gates do they?

Also do you know why the A320's and A380's have the same (although different size) winglets and the A330's have a bigger one similar to the 747's?
Strange question I know, but wondered why.

Cheers.

 

[jb747]

Hi Pilots,
Further to this Serbian "emergency" issue. Is it that easy to knock to flaps down a notch when in cruise?
I would have thought it wouldn't allow you to do it in cruise. I guess they don't come fitted with locking gates do they?

The flap lever is gated, so you would have to lift it past the gate to get the flaps to move. There is a balk function on the A380, which should stop this sort of thing in some cases. But, the aircraft cannot, and should not, be designed to stop any feasible strange selection. Sometimes doing something outside of the nominal limits is necessary. Most likely though, a fault in the system that stops inadvertent use, will end up interfering with normal use.

Also do you know why the A320's and A380's have the same (although different size) winglets and the A330's have a bigger one similar to the 747's? Strange question I know, but wondered why.

320s now have huge winglets, like the ones on the 737. The A380 winglets are actually very big, but they just don't look it. About 3 metres from to bottom..which probably makes them the biggest of all. I think there are a lot of trade offs in their design. The 777, 747-8 and 787 don't use them at all. I recall being told that on the 747-400 they more or less paid for themselves, but there was little benefit beyond that.

 

[mjt57]

The flap lever is gated, so you would have to lift it past the gate to get the flaps to move.

When I had my Flight Experience Sim (B737-800) I had difficulty in operating the flaps due to a wrist injury that was taking its time to mend itself. The lifting of the lever out of its gate required a rather positive force, from what I remember. (the landing gear was worse as it was further away from me).

 

[HW]

Taking off, the shortest I can recall, wasn't so much the length, but the time. A departure from 34R (Sydney), on a very windy day gave us somewhere around 10 seconds from setting the thrust to rotate. But, on those (wind shearing) days we also use maximum thrust, and it was a very light aircraft.

On Tues afternoon I flew out of Sydney (originally scheduled out of NTL that morning, but that's another story) and the wind was buffeting the aerobridge and the parked aircraft quite strongly. Once powering down the runway the aircraft definitely got airborne pretty quickly!

Question for JB/Boris: on the way down from BNE on Monday we took off using a shortened runway ie the pilot didn't taxi all the way to the end of the runway before lining up, he entered off of one of the taxiways part way down. As we were doing it I remembered an expression that I've heard along the lines of "useless things in aviation include altitude above the plane, runway behind you, and fuel left in the bowser". Presumably the pilot is responsible for electing a shortened takeoff, why wouldn't the pilot always use the maximum amount of runway just in case a stop was required at the very last moment?

 

[jb747]

....on the way down from BNE on Monday we took off using a shortened runway ie the pilot didn't taxi all the way to the end of the runway before lining up, he entered off of one of the taxiways part way down. As we were doing it I remembered an expression that I've heard along the lines of "useless things in aviation include altitude above the plane, runway behind you, and fuel left in the bowser". Presumably the pilot is responsible for electing a shortened takeoff, why wouldn't the pilot always use the maximum amount of runway just in case a stop was required at the very last moment?

You need to change the way you are looking at it. We calculate a V1 figure for every take off, but we are not looking for the highest refusal speed possible, but rather, the lowest go speed. In almost all cases getting airborne with an issue is a better outcome than trying to stop from high speed. On an infinitely long runway, V1 would be calculated so that if we stopped from that speed, it would take the same distance as continuing, with one engine out, and reaching 35 feet. The upshot is that on that infinite runway, this calculation would discount any runway that it did not need to balance the two distances.

Beyond that though, use of a shorter runway, may require more power, or a different configuration. Configuration is neither here nor there, but using the least power possible is good for the engine. Countering, that, if everyone used the full length, then it would be quite a nightmare for ATC, and everything would slow down.

If it's extremely windy, they will most likely use TOGA anyway (because of the risk of wind shear), so derate becomes moot.

Looking at the A380, we almost always use 24L departing LA, even though it is relatively short for the operation, and requires TOGA power. Why? Because the time taken to use the alternative 25L is too much of a cost in time and fuel. Departing say, London, I'm quite happy to use a shorter choice, as long as the power required gives at least some derate (and going to Dubai, any start point that we might use would give the maximum derate).

 

[mikenz]

Departing say, London, I'm quite happy to use a shorter choice, as long as the power required gives at least some derate (and going to Dubai, any start point that we might use would give the maximum derate).

Is that because the aircraft is relatively light?

 

[jb747]

Is that because the aircraft is relatively light?

It's light, and any of the departure entry points would give the same (maximum) derate. If I was heavy, and the choice was between two entries that gave a derate for one, and TOGA for the other, I'd opt for the longer, with the derate...unless that would mean substantial delay (no set number for that...). There are margins in all cases...it's just that some have more than others.

 

[mikenz]

Thanks JB - you mention that derate is better for the engines. Is that during flight, or long-term? Or both?

Do you have a duty to protect the longevity of the engines? Other than that it's probably the right thing to do! Is it policy (Generally, not specifically at your place) to choose the best option for the engines if given the choice?