Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

If you've allowed for 25 and you end up with 24, do you have to remove fuel before taxi, or sit around burning it off?

Well, we'll burn it off, but it will probably be less disruptive to the airport if we do so by actually using 25. Removing fuel isn't a reasonable option (it takes so long that nobody ever does it).

 

[jb747]

Just looking at this clip of a 787-9 and was staggered at the climb angle. It almost looks vertical but I assume it's the camera position. Just what would be the climb rate ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYbM-3E11Qo&feature=youtu.be

Cunning camera angles. I note that there are no side on images anywhere (that I've found anyway).

A light 767 can easily hit 30º. I would be surprised if this is over 40º.... Loss of an engine with the nose so high would give the sort of video that nobody wants.

And this is why no pilots are impressed...https://youtu.be/crj5stqkKeI

 

[juddles]

Just looking at this clip of a 787-9 and was staggered at the climb angle. It almost looks vertical but I assume it's the camera position. Just what would be the climb rate ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYbM-3E11Qo&feature=youtu.be

"almost vertical"? Boeing decided to show off the amazing 787 capabilities with a take-off "Pugachev's Cobra" manouvre. Pretty easy stuff for God's Own aeroplane. (what few realize is that the pilot, in a sort of parallel of Tex Johnson's famous and unauthorized 707 roll, actually decided to do this with just one engine powered up!!)

 

[drross]

Cunning camera angles. I note that there are no side on images anywhere (that I've found anyway).

A light 767 can easily hit 30º. I would be surprised if this is over 40º.... Loss of an engine with the nose so high would give the sort of video that nobody wants.

And this is why no pilots are impressed...https://youtu.be/crj5stqkKeI

woe. hadn't seen that one previously

 

[coriander]

Cunning camera angles. I note that there are no side on images anywhere (that I've found anyway

The video of the 787-9 rehearsing a similar takeoff for Farnborough 2014 shows a somewhat side on view.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GZRKm6PG918#

 

[ChrisGibbs]

Well, we'll burn it off, but it will probably be less disruptive to the airport if we do so by actually using 25. Removing fuel isn't a reasonable option (it takes so long that nobody ever does it).

During the Northern Hemisphere winter I do recall many years back being on a number of what was then the QF9 Singapore - Heathrow 747 services. According to the PIC, when getting our airways clearance we were cleared for a SID off RWY20C. After a couple of small delays and just prior to pushback we got a runway change to RWY02C with a much shorter taxi time. When we lined up on 02C we sat with the brakes on and engines at a much high RPM than normal for around 2-3 minutes prior to take-off to allow for fuel burn off. On his walk around the First Officer commented that the auto throttles don't allow a take off on aircraft above the MTOW (not sure if my interpretation of this is accurate). Interestingly the First Officer did say the flight time was unusually short for that time of year and we were due to land in Heathrow prior to 5:00am. He did comment that if we were to arrive prior to 5:00am we would take a very slow taxi off 27L to the Gate. Arrival prior to 5:00am would cost the company additional $'s.

 

[jb747]

During the Northern Hemisphere winter I do recall many years back being on a number of what was then the QF9 Singapore - Heathrow 747 services. According to the PIC, when getting our airways clearance we were cleared for a SID off RWY20C. After a couple of small delays and just prior to pushback we got a runway change to RWY02C with a much shorter taxi time. When we lined up on 02C we sat with the brakes on and engines at a much high RPM than normal for around 2-3 minutes prior to take-off to allow for fuel burn off.

That's certainly a possible reason for sitting there. The taxi fuel issue didn't seem to come up as often in the 747, though you would often leave Singapore at MTOW, whereas the 380 never did.

On his walk around the First Officer commented that the auto throttles don't allow a take off on aircraft above the MTOW (not sure if my interpretation of this is accurate).

Hope he wasn't relying on that because they certainly don't look at the MTOW vs actual weight before allowing the power to be set.

Interestingly the First Officer did say the flight time was unusually short for that time of year and we were due to land in Heathrow prior to 5:00am. He did comment that if we were to arrive prior to 5:00am we would take a very slow taxi off 27L to the Gate. Arrival prior to 5:00am would cost the company additional $'s.

If you land before 5am, without an emergency, then expect to visit the Chief Pilot's office to hand in your 4 bars. No excuse whatsoever, when you have 13 hours to finesse the arrival time. As the arrival sequence was alway pretty quiet around that time of day, you could programme an arrival of 0501 into the FMC, and let it manipulate the speed through the entire night to hit that time. If you had the 0600 arrival (and you can't arrive before that either), you'd put an RTA progress time into the FMC of 0550 at the Lambourne holding point. That should make you close to the lowest in that stack, and would get you on the ground pretty well on 0600. Getting to the hold a few minutes later would put you in amongst the gaggle, and could cost 20 minutes. Of course, the best laid plans never survive contact with ATC.

 

[Mattg]

Why do passengers need to have their phones switched off when walking across the tarmac?

 

[jb747]

Why do passengers need to have their phones switched off when walking across the tarmac?

I think the original limitation was based on the fact that they're likely to be in proximity to refuelling operations. Same reason you're supposed to have them off when refuelling your car. I expect that the reality of this falls somewhere between myth and just about impossible.

But...the biggest real issue with phones and iPods (and their ilk) is that they have the immediate effect of turning off the users' attention. They don't listen to any instructions, and may as well be on another planet.

 

[ChrisGibbs]

JB747 - just about to jump on a JAL 767 from NRT-SIN... Are the regulatory organisations over the top with this sort of behaviour or are they just playing catch-up with the times? From memory Japan has some liability provisions with transport accidents where the liability rests with the pilot (in this case).

In the lounge the staff handed each passenger the following notice:

https://www.jal.co.jp/en/info/dom/150612_2.html

[h=2]Regarding Private Photos Taken In The coughpit Affecting Monitoring Duty[/h]JAL was issued a warning by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) regarding an occurrence on June 7, 2015, in which a JAL pilot took photos in the coughpit during flight and may have temporarily affected monitoring duties.

We deeply apologize for any concerns and inconvenience caused to customers and related parties because of this occurrence.
[h=3]Flight Information[/h]
Date : Around 8:00 am on June 7, 2015 (JST)
Flight No. and route : JL2000 en route from Sapporo (New Chitose) to Osaka (Itami)
[h=3]Outline of the Occurrence[/h]

• After the aircraft ascended and the seat belt sign was turned off, the co-pilot left his seat to go to the lavatory, and a cabin attendant entered the coughpit as a temporary replacement. The Captain asked the cabin attendant to sit in the vacant co-pilot seat and took photos of the two with his smartphone.
• As the Captain took private photos in the coughpit, he was unable to adequately perform outside monitoring leading to a violation of the Civil Aeronautics Law.

We take this occurrence seriously and will make utmost efforts to ensure that such occurrence will never happen again. We will respond immediately to establish and implement preventive measures and we will confirm with every JAL staff raising and reaffirming the awareness for safety and compliance.

June 12, 2015
Japan Airlines

 

[jb747]

JB747 - just about to jump on a JAL 767 from NRT-SIN... Are the regulatory organisations over the top with this sort of behaviour or are they just playing catch-up with the times? From memory Japan has some liability provisions with transport accidents where the liability rests with the pilot (in this case).

I think he was foolish to put her into the FOs seat. As for the camera...also not a good idea when only one pilot in the coughpit. At other times, it can be one of the activities that keeps you awake. You can't sit there and 'monitor' for the whole time...you'd go mad, or fall asleep, or both.

 

[Flying Fox]

Just wondering how much further a private jet configuration A380 could fly vs a commercial QF A380.

Or in the same vein a private jet configuration B747, B777 etc?

 

[mjt57]

If you land before 5am, without an emergency, then expect to visit the Chief Pilot's office to hand in your 4 bars.

Why is this so bad? Does "handing in the 4 bars" mean dismissal demotion?

 

[jb747]

Just wondering how much further a private jet configuration A380 could fly vs a commercial QF A380.

Or in the same vein a private jet configuration B747, B777 etc?

It's very difficult to say. How much would the empty weigh change? You'd have to presume that it would go down, but solid gold toilets must weigh a fair bit. Assuming a take off weight of 540 tonnes, and the maximum fuel load (250 tonnes), you could get a 380 to fly for about 20:30 hours, and about 9,500 nm. If your zero fuel weight were the same as the normal airline aircraft, that would leave you 5 tonnes for payload. So, you, your Ferrari, and 30 friends....

 

[jb747]

Why is this so bad? Does "handing in the 4 bars" mean dismissal demotion?

It might not, but there would be repercussions. It's your basic bread and butter. Managing curfews is something that is done every day, and which you generally have many hours to plan. At the very least it's an example of
poor management.

 

[Himeno]

It might not, but there would be repercussions. It's your basic bread and butter. Managing curfews is something that is done every day, and which you generally have many hours to plan. At the very least it's an example of poor management.

Is it "worse" to brake curfew in one place more then another? ie, would landing at 0555 at NRT (when airport opens at 0600) have the same "handing in the 4 bars" response as landing at 0450 at LHR?

 

[jb747]

Is it "worse" to brake curfew in one place more then another? ie, would landing at 0555 at NRT (when airport opens at 0600) have the same "handing in the 4 bars" response as landing at 0450 at LHR?

Whilst the penalties that might be applied vary from place to place, it's exactly the same issue. Some places could remove slots from your airline, or issue six figure financial penalties, so the repercussions are not minor. As the FMC, if correctly programmed, can monitor the landing time to the second, it's also something that just should not happen.

 

[smeacs]

A mate and I were pooling ignorance pretty much and hence wondering what the take-off distance for a fully loaded A380 is ? and hence minimum runway length, assuming no wind.

More or less the discussion was can an A380 can be used at Adelaide from a runway point of view. I remembered some earlier post where you mentioned that Adelaide is a perfectly fine runway for diversions but my mates information was the runway is to short, although obviously the required runway length is dependent on aircraft weight which is variable.

 

[jb747]

A mate and I were pooling ignorance pretty much and hence wondering what the take-off distance for a fully loaded A380 is ? and hence minimum runway length, assuming no wind.

More or less the discussion was can an A380 can be used at Adelaide from a runway point of view. I remembered some earlier post where you mentioned that Adelaide is a perfectly fine runway for diversions but my mates information was the runway is to short, although obviously the required runway length is dependent on aircraft weight which is variable.

Runway length requirements are like a piece of string. There's no set number...you need to select a bunch of conditions and then work out the answer for them.

Looking at Adelaide 23, with a QNH of 1015, calm, you could handle up to 32º of temperature and still be able to operate at maximum structural weight (569 tonnes). Performance calculations throw up maximums of well over 600 tonnes on many operations off longer runways.

In any event, your mate owes you a beer.

 

[smeacs]

Sweet, Cheers!