Ask The Pilot

  • Thread starter Thread starter NM
  • Start date Start date
  • Featured
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?

The less power you ask the engines for, the cooler they run, and the longer they last.

You have a bunch of competing duties. Overall comes the safety of the aircraft (and its occupants). If a safety issue becomes your primary concern, then every other limitation disappears...you'll use the engines until they melt if you really need the power. Beyond that though, you're in charge of a machine worth anywhere up to half a billion dollars...you take as much care of it as you possibly can.
 
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?

An intersection departure can save a lot of time for short haul ops. 5 mins on each sector can mean 40 mins or so at the end of the day. The company specifies general conditions as to when you can take a shorter departure than full length. The performance calcs always allow for the loss of an engine at the critical moment, so you should always have suitable runway remaining in that case to stop or get airborne.

At BNE, we normally take the intersection departures off runway 01/19 on most sectors.
 
Hi Pilots,

BOM has threatened to stop providing weather reports to CBR airport at times pollies are likely to fly in and out. A person has been quoted in the media stating that's not a problem, they can simply load in extra fuel for a diversion if needs be. Would it be that simple or would the lack of weather reports also equal no flights in / out of CBR?
 
BOM has threatened to stop providing weather reports to CBR airport at times pollies are likely to fly in and out. A person has been quoted in the media stating that's not a problem, they can simply load in extra fuel for a diversion if needs be. Would it be that simple or would the lack of weather reports also equal no flights in / out of CBR?

As pollies fly in and out at any time of day, that would basically mean no weather reports. As such it would be unbelievably irresponsible. Diversion fuel would probably not be an issue most of the time, but I expect smaller operations, and private aircraft would be most affected (i.e. the ones not carrying pollies).

Extra costs wouldn't come out of the pollies pockets, but rather the airlines, so it would seem to be a misaimed adventure anyway.

Anyway, there are almost certainly other sources of forecasts.
 
Simulator time again. The system has been changed recently, so that now, instead of doing one sim roughly every three months, we’re now doing two on consecutive days, every six months. Like every change there are pluses and minuses, but it allows some of the work to be spread over the two exercises…and keeps them close enough that you don’t forget it in the interval.


First exercise is run out of Dallas, and starts with a take off and SID, which then joins a STAR and the ILS. Overall straightforward enough, but with the twist that it’s done manually, with no autopilot or flight director use. Done twice, once for each pilot.


Next up the FO gets a take off…engine failure and fire after V1, and then just for laughs a second engine failure (on the same side) at a few hundred feet. When you eventually get all the procedures sorted out, he gets to fly back around and land.


A bunch of landings next, with differing failures. The electrical emergency configuration takes away most of the coughpit displays, drops the aircraft into direct law, and plays havoc with almost all of the systems. Quite restricted flight controls, which means it’s unresponsive in the flare, and needs almost full back stick. Then we get the electrics back, and do a flapless/slatless landing…approach speed 178 KIAS…and the flare is the opposite, with the aircraft wanting to overpitch.


There are three radar altimeters, and they are failed individually, and then totally. You lose obvious things like altitude calls, but also the aircraft switches to direct law when the flaps are extended. Autopilot works in some modes but not all.


Exercise finishes with some landings with tailwinds.


All good stuff to see and play with.


The next day the exercise takes place in San Francisco.


We start off at about 20,000, and turn off all of our screens. Then we both have a fly on the standby instruments, and look at moving the displays to alternative positions. Just to answer a query….we also turn off all of the PRIMs (primary flight control computers)…just to see what happens (nothing much, lots of warnings, and direct law).


Back to the airport. Take off on 28R, head up to the north , and then fly the VOR approach to 19L (with all systems working). Go around at the minima, and the given a low level for the go around. This leads to a ground proximity warning, with a max back stick pull up. Once sorted out, back to the runway, for the FO to do the same exercise, though this time a different reason for the go around (first time we were still in cloud at the minima, but the second, the runway lights went out).


Back to the airfield for another take off, but now we’re at maximum weight, and in thick fog. First take off results in an abort from about 150 knots. Second time around, the engine fails past V1, so take off. As the terrain is rising in front of you, there is an escape path to follow, which basically takes you down a valley. Once sorted out, the engine fixes itself, and you lose 200 tonnes of weight, and set up for a low vis approach. System plays up a bit, and you lose the CAT IIIB capability (no decision height), and revert to IIIA (50 feet). Loss of localiser at low level leads to a go around. Now the weather improves, but the aids die, so you fly a visual approach without any guidance.


Aircraft now miraculously jumps to the Hawaii area and into the cruise, where you then have a depressurisation, and emergency descent. Hawaii is chosen because the safety height is just under 17,000’.


Back to SFO, where we fly the VOR from the first part of the exercise again. This time, the GPS single has degraded, so that the approach has to be flown in selected (i.e. heading, track, V-S, FPA) instead of our normal managed modes….just like we always did in the 767.


All done…go home.

 
Last edited:
I feel tired just reading about the sim. There I was complaining about how hectic and busy my day was.
Nevermind :oops:.

Thanks jb. What a great insight as to how the pilots who fly the aircraft we travel on, are trained. Love it !!!!
 
Thanks JB. What climb rate can you maintain at mtow with 2 engines out (on the same side if that is relevant)?
 
Thanks JB. What climb rate can you maintain at mtow with 2 engines out (on the same side if that is relevant)?

Very different problems if the engines that are out are on the same side or different. With the engines out on the same side, the massive amount of rudder that you need also increases the drag dramatically. You also lose one hydraulic system, so if the gear is not already retracted, then it won't come up (completely anyway). Basically, it's not a case of what rate of climb you'll get, but has the failure occurred high enough to give you enough time to accelerate to min drag before you run out of height.
 
Thanks so much for taking the time to post .... absolutely fascinating and rivetting reading.

I'd guess all the sims were in the A380 simulator?
And SFO, HNL because they're alternates to LAX? Is Tahiti in the sim as well?
Do you ever "run out of height" in the simulator?
 
I'd guess all the sims were in the A380 simulator?
Exercises are obviously written for each aircraft...and its sim. They are run at various ports that the aircraft currently use, or which may crop up.

And SFO, HNL because they're alternates to LAX? Is Tahiti in the sim as well?
They are both places you might end up...but they are also interesting because they have multiple runway choices, and terrain very close. In this instance we didn't actually go to Hawaii...we just had to miss the big island during the emergency descent.

Do you ever "run out of height" in the simulator?
There is no point crashing the sim...and you might break it anyway. The lack of performance in some cases is demonstrated without going to the obvious conclusion.
 
Do all pilots have the same SIM? If so do you get an idea of what to expect from those who have gone before you?

Sometimes (like this set) they are exactly the same. Basically all training, with minimal checking. Other exercises will have two or three scenarios that the instructor can follow, but they are all pre written. The instructors don't get to make it up at the time...it's all very standardised.

The company doesn't care if you know there are a couple of scenarios. You still don't know what you will get, so you have to prepare for them all anyway.
 
Are these sessions mainly Assessment i.e Fail and there are bad things, or trying new skills and training ? Do you get a chance to ask for certain scenarios to try? ( of course the un suspecting nature of the emergency is the key part)
 
Are these sessions mainly Assessment i.e Fail and there are bad things, or trying new skills and training ?

They've varied a lot over the years, but these days they are much more about training, and contain the minimum checking required. Sudden death sim sessions are pointless, and do nothing to improve the safety of the operation.

Do you get a chance to ask for certain scenarios to try? ( of course the un suspecting nature of the emergency is the key part)

They are written to a script to ensure we cover a matrix of items over a period of a couple of years. Much is mandated by CASA, but the airlines and their training departments, are very reactive to any incidents, and incorporate as much as is reasonable into the exercises. The aircraft are very complex, and in day to day operations, we don't use many of the systems, so the training sessions will ensure that we look at every button every now and then.

Unsuspecting is almost pointless. When stuff happens in the real world you'll get your unsuspecting...it does not add any value to a sim exercise, unless you happen to be doing a final check...and that's not about training. Having said that, aborts, engine failures on take off, and go arounds, happen randomly.

If there is any time left over (normally not, but these two gave us some), you can practice or look at anything you like. We had a play with rudder use after an engine failure, and just how the aircraft behaves, plus I wanted to see the PRIMs turned off. FO decided a low level beat up of SFO would be fun too....on three engines. You can learn stuff having fun too.
 
Turn business expenses into Business Class! Process $10,000 through pay.com.au to score 20,000 bonus PayRewards Points and join 30k+ savvy business owners enjoying these benefits:

- Pay suppliers who don’t take Amex
- Max out credit card rewards—even on government payments
- Earn & Transfer PayRewards Points to 8+ top airline & hotel partners

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

FO decided a low level beat up of SFO would be fun too....on three engines. You can learn stuff having fun too.
I'm guessing but did he fly fast jets in a previous life?

Anyway, all good reading. Still jealous as anything, particularly the quality of the simulators that you have access to. If the Flight Experience one is any guide they are high quality builds, unlike our PoSes...
 
I'm guessing but did he fly fast jets in a previous life?

No. A GA man...but the hoon is strong in all of us.

Anyway, all good reading. Still jealous as anything, particularly the quality of the simulators that you have access to. If the Flight Experience one is any guide they are high quality builds, unlike our PoSes...

We get critical of them, but the reality is that they are extraordinarily accurate, and the sweaty shirts generally attest to that.
 

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