Ask The Pilot

[markis10]

I will step in and answer this with my ATC (former) hat on, as aerodrome inspections are mandated by Aerodrome operations laws, which state that a runway will be inspected after first light, after significant or unusual weather and as mandated by ATC. In the case of your example, ATC would have requested a runway inspection to check for tyre and other debris as a result of the unexpected braking as part of the RTO.

 

[jb747]

Re: Rejected Take Off

Hi JB.
One of the multiple delays I experienced on SYD-MEL yesterday was a hold-up just prior to take off.

The captain announced to us that the aircraft ahead of us rejected it's take off and a runway inspection was required before we could proceed.

So, my question is, under what circumstances is a runway inspection required?

On any occasion where there might be debris on the runway. Engine failures can throw debris (even if contained, things can blow out the back). Tyres can throw the thread...that could even be the cause of an abort at low speed, and it becomes more likely after a very high speed abort. Domestically, aborts in aircraft like the 767 aren't high energy enough to be likely to cause tyre issues, but most international ops are.

I had a tyre partially deflate in flight a few months ago. Whilst I had no concern about the operation of the aircraft, we arranged for the landing to be on the longer runway (so that we wouldn't need to brake as heavily, and so could reduce the heat going into the tyre), and also for a runway inspection after we landed. The tyre hung together nicely, but much better to have made prior arrangements for the inspection, than to just spring the requirement onto ATC as you slow down.

My initial thoughts were that perhaps the aircraft spotted or hit some debris on the runway, or they had a tyre blow out or something.

Really too hard to guess. I certainly wouldn't abort because I saw some debris on the runway, or in most cases, for a tyre failure. Believe it or not, tyres are minor items and a single failure is unlikely to be noticed in the coughpit.

Then I wondered if this is standard procedure for all rejected take offs?

No. It would depend upon the circumstances of the abort. Most are low energy affairs, quite early in the take off roll.

Could a usually innocuous warning light on take-off potentially be caused by a seemingly unrelated part falling off the plane?

The vast majority of warnings are inhibited during takeoff. The inhibit start point varies, but the upshot is that in most cases you're better off taking a problem into the air than you are aborting.

Bits that fall off...are almost always things that we won't even notice, and which will have no effect or warnings.

 

[reductionist]

Thanks JB.

I have another question for you. I took this photo of an A380 this morning.

The front of the left wing looks to me like it's recently undergone some sort of repair?

At least, that was the only explanation I could come up with for the patchy markings on it.

I was wondering if you had any idea what this might have been?

 

[jb747]

The front of the left wing looks to me like it's recently undergone some sort of repair?

At least, that was the only explanation I could come up with for the patchy markings on it.

I was wondering if you had any idea what this might have been?

View attachment 4158

Common across the Airbus fleet. They don't seem to have worked out how to make paint stick...or perhaps they just leave the undercoat off and hope the new owners won't notice.

It was so bad on one of the 330s that it was sent back....

 

[el_rooto]

Common across the Airbus fleet. They don't seem to have worked out how to make paint stick...or perhaps they just leave the undercoat off and hope the new owners won't notice.

It was so bad on one of the 330s that it was sent back....

Which one?

 

[jb747]

Which one?

Not sure which one, but I think it was one of the early 200s. Paint was coming off in huge swathes, largely from the area just above the coughpit windows.

 

[harvyk]

If a plane which has come into the airport as an international flight is then departing as a domestic from the dom terminal, is there anything special which needs to be done, eg an extra careful check of the plane, a customs check or extra paperwork, or would they simly tow the plane to the dom gate ready for it's next flight?

 

[jb747]

If a plane which has come into the airport as an international flight is then departing as a domestic from the dom terminal, is there anything special which needs to be done, eg an extra careful check of the plane, a customs check or extra paperwork, or would they simly tow the plane to the dom gate ready for it's next flight?

Long time since I've done a flight like that. But, as best I recall, all of the galley gear was removed (duty free etc) and replaced with the domestic. Crew had to go and visit customs/immigration. At one point in Brisbane we used to fly in from NZ. Exit the terminal and catch a bus to domestic...and wait for engineering to tow the (same) aircraft to the terminal. Later that changed to the pilots coming back after customs and taxying it to the terminal...but I think the CC still caught the bus.

Basically just a normal turn-around.

 

[Flying Fox]

JB, what's your opinion on why QF are taking a long (in my opinion) time to make changes to engines etc?

I ask because I have been reading about the problem with RR RB211 engines that are suffering from 'blade' failures at 3x the expected rate. Hence causing engines to grenade themselves. I read that QF now have in place an accelerated program to change all the suspect parts over the next 12-18mths (I also realise that this may be RR's recommendation).

To me (the great un-informed) this seems like a wide window to make the changes and doesn't seem very accelerated; esp. given the amount of damage and inconvenience (for both QF and passengers) that these failures cause. Whilst I totally understand QF can't simply ground all aircraft and make the changes overnight, I would have expected a time frame closer to a few months vs 12 - 18mths?

Thks

 

[jb747]

JB, what's your opinion on why QF are taking a long (in my opinion) time to make changes to engines etc?

I ask because I have been reading about the problem with RR RB211 engines that are suffering from 'blade' failures at 3x the expected rate. Hence causing engines to grenade themselves. I read that QF now have in place an accelerated program to change all the suspect parts over the next 12-18mths (I also realise that this may be RR's recommendation).

To me (the great un-informed) this seems like a wide window to make the changes and doesn't seem very accelerated; esp. given the amount of damage and inconvenience (for both QF and passengers) that these failures cause. Whilst I totally understand QF can't simply ground all aircraft and make the changes overnight, I would have expected a time frame closer to a few months vs 12 - 18mths?

To be honest, I don't know all the facts associated with the failures. I'd expect RR would be part of the issue, but I guess you'd also have to look at who is actually doing the work. Is it being done in house, or outsourced? If the later, then you'd just have to fit in with whatever schedule they have.

 

[Hvr]

The Queen was flown to CBR by BA. Do the pilots do a test run(s) here before hand to see CBR AP first hand or can they familiarise themselves with CBR AP using the sims?

 

[Flying Fox]

To be honest, I don't know all the facts associated with the failures. I'd expect RR would be part of the issue, but I guess you'd also have to look at who is actually doing the work. Is it being done in house, or outsourced? If the later, then you'd just have to fit in with whatever schedule they have.

Fair enough & I realise that you don't fly B747s. However, as a pilot would you ever be concerned about flying an aircraft that was the subject to one of these requested/required engine modifications which might not occur for 18mths?

 

[jb747]

Fair enough & I realise that you don't fly B747s. However, as a pilot would you ever be concerned about flying an aircraft that was the subject to one of these requested/required engine modifications which might not occur for 18mths?

Not really. As often as not it's like software...they bring in a new mod, and it gives a whole new bunch of problems. Very often too, there are limitations that apply until the mod is done.

 

[jb747]

The Queen was flown to CBR by BA. Do the pilots do a test run(s) here before hand to see CBR AP first hand or can they familiarise themselves with CBR AP using the sims?

They would have done any training they felt necessary in the sim. They most likely didn't really need any, but I'm sure somebody would have invented something for them to do.

 

[rechoboam]

Having spent 15 hours today on an A380 I'm sitting on the couch feeling like I'm on a rollercoaster - there was a lot of sort of lifting/sinking movement on the flight, unlike last week which was very smooth.

Two questions if I may:
Do A380s have more of that sort of movement than say an A340 or 747? It seemed really marked during flap operations especially on climbing, and there was a lot of that with an unexpected diversion to SYD then a flight on the same A380 to MEL.
Second, do airline pilots have this happen to them? Apparently it's called mal de debarquement and is common after being on a boat. That was the last time I experienced it. I wonder if I had more of it this time because I sat in the centre of the plane, previously having always chosen window seats when possible.

 

[jb747]

Having spent 15 hours today on an A380 I'm sitting on the couch feeling like I'm on a rollercoaster - there was a lot of sort of lifting/sinking movement on the flight, unlike last week which was very smooth.

Two questions if I may:
Do A380s have more of that sort of movement than say an A340 or 747? It seemed really marked during flap operations especially on climbing, and there was a lot of that with an unexpected diversion to SYD then a flight on the same A380 to MEL.

I've never travelled on a 340, but I find the motions in the 330 to be about the most uncomfortable that I've experienced, and would assume the 340 is the same.

Generally the 380 rides quite well. There seems to be more lateral motion than in the 747, but I've always put that down to the 380 fuselage being more rigid. The 747 flexes, and acts as a big shock absorber...the motion was quite evident when I made the transition from the 767 but I very quickly stopped noticing it.

The only time that I'd say the 380 will be worse than the 747 (as it is in turn worse than the 767) is on approach in gusty conditions. The very high lift wing works against you then, as it gives a greater change in available lift with any of the (rapid) changes in conditions.

As for the flap operations...they're only extended for a tiny part of the flight...perhaps 3 or 4 minutes at each end of the flight, although that does coincide with operations at lower levels, where it is likely to be a bit bumpy.

Second, do airline pilots have this happen to them? Apparently it's called mal de debarquement and is common after being on a boat. That was the last time I experienced it. I wonder if I had more of it this time because I sat in the centre of the plane, previously having always chosen window seats when possible.

I think pilots tend to be quite immune to the motions of any aircraft that they happen to be in control of.....

Sitting in the centre probably removes you from more of the cues, but it always seems like I'm in something like a theatre when I go into the cabin...not much relationship to an aircraft.

When was this diversion? Friday?

 

[rechoboam]

I've never travelled on a 340, but I find the motions in the 330 to be about the most uncomfortable that I've experienced, and would assume the 340 is the same.

Generally the 380 rides quite well. There seems to be more lateral motion than in the 747, but I've always put that down to the 380 fuselage being more rigid. The 747 flexes, and acts as a big shock absorber...the motion was quite evident when I made the transition from the 767 but I very quickly stopped noticing it.

The only time that I'd say the 380 will be worse than the 747 (as it is in turn worse than the 767) is on approach in gusty conditions. The very high lift wing works against you then, as it gives a greater change in available lift with any of the (rapid) changes in conditions.

As for the flap operations...they're only extended for a tiny part of the flight...perhaps 3 or 4 minutes at each end of the flight, although that does coincide with operations at lower levels, where it is likely to be a bit bumpy.



I think pilots tend to be quite immune to the motions of any aircraft that they happen to be in control of.....

Sitting in the centre probably removes you from more of the cues, but it always seems like I'm in something like a theatre when I go into the cabin...not much relationship to an aircraft.

When was this diversion? Friday?

Qf94 on Friday. Arrived in Sydney about 9 am. Was very impressed by the crew after a total of 18 hours+ since they started in LA. I will send feedback.

 

[Happy Trails]

JB747, I know you can’t answer for BA but I’m interested in your opinion and whether QF would have done things differently.

BA9, BKK-SYD last week:
After boarding there was a two hour delay with no air conditioning and a 35C temperature on board due to a failed APU, so quite unpleasant for everyone.
Yes, I know these things happen and I’m not looking for sympathy.
But the pilot stated, and sounded fairly annoyed and surprised, that the aircraft had left London in that condition.
I can understand that too, but shouldn’t they have anticipated the problem in BKK rather than waiting until everyone was on board and then trying to sort it out?

 

[jb747]

JB747, I know you can’t answer for BA but I’m interested in your opinion and whether QF would have done things differently.

BA9, BKK-SYD last week:
After boarding there was a two hour delay with no air conditioning and a 35C temperature on board due to a failed APU, so quite unpleasant for everyone.
Yes, I know these things happen and I’m not looking for sympathy.
But the pilot stated, and sounded fairly annoyed and surprised, that the aircraft had left London in that condition.
I can understand that too, but shouldn’t they have anticipated the problem in BKK rather than waiting until everyone was on board and then trying to sort it out?

No APU, or no APU bleed (which has the same effect) can be a real PITA to manage in many areas...especially in summer in OZ.

Very few ground systems, whether they be external connections to air-conditioned air, or sources of bleed, are able to adequately handle the requirements of an empty aircraft on a hot day, much less one with passengers. In fact, in a number of local airports, it's only very recently than any conditioned air at all has become available.

We won't normally board the aircraft if the temperature is already above 30 degrees. Generally, I'll delay boarding until all external work is done, and the cargo doors are shut. Then we can start an engine or two (at some airports anyway), and try to get the temperature under control. That can take up to an hour. And then we try to have the boarding done quickly. You can be sitting on quite a knife edge here, as it is quite possible that the temperature prior to engine start could be high enough for the crew to call it quits. And if it gets really hot, even the engines have trouble cooling it again.

No APU (or conditioned air) and summer, will almost always give extensive delays.

Should the aircraft have departed London? Well, the MELs will most certainly allow it. On a twin, it may also come with some restrictive ETOPs issues, but it has no effect on a quad. The engineers who sign off on the MEL, will have no idea of air availability at another airport...basically if the book says it can be MELed, then they'll do so. The company response to any query will invariably be that they'll arrange for conditioned air...and who knows, they might. Rejecting the aircraft outright will probably stop the service, and would probably be a bit hard to explain given that the lack of the APU won't be a problem on that particular flight.

(MELs are allowable defects).

 

[Happy Trails]

No APU, or no APU bleed (which has the same effect) can be a real PITA to manage in many areas...especially in summer in OZ.

Very few ground systems, whether they be external connections to air-conditioned air, or sources of bleed, are able to adequately handle the requirements of an empty aircraft on a hot day, much less one with passengers. In fact, in a number of local airports, it's only very recently than any conditioned air at all has become available.

We won't normally board the aircraft if the temperature is already above 30 degrees. Generally, I'll delay boarding until all external work is done, and the cargo doors are shut. Then we can start an engine or two (at some airports anyway), and try to get the temperature under control. That can take up to an hour. And then we try to have the boarding done quickly. You can be sitting on quite a knife edge here, as it is quite possible that the temperature prior to engine start could be high enough for the crew to call it quits. And if it gets really hot, even the engines have trouble cooling it again.

No APU (or conditioned air) and summer, will almost always give extensive delays.

Should the aircraft have departed London? Well, the MELs will most certainly allow it. On a twin, it may also come with some restrictive ETOPs issues, but it has no effect on a quad. The engineers who sign off on the MEL, will have no idea of air availability at another airport...basically if the book says it can be MELed, then they'll do so. The company response to any query will invariably be that they'll arrange for conditioned air...and who knows, they might. Rejecting the aircraft outright will probably stop the service, and would probably be a bit hard to explain given that the lack of the APU won't be a problem on that particular flight.

(MELs are allowable defects).

Thanks, that seems to explain the situation in this case.