Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

Do you know who the rest of your crew will be for each flight when you get the roster, or do you find out at the airport?

I know who most of the pilots will be when the roster is issued. Their names aren't on the roster itself, but I can look up the crew list for each pattern or individual flight.

Sometimes a name will be missing, if that particular flight is in open time for the rank (i.e. uncrewed until two days out). There's a small number of flights like that. In part they exist to absorb some of the variation that occurs during a roster period.

Cabin crew names appear when a pattern becomes the next flight.

 

[Kc4334]

Hi JB

I am wondering what pathway you went through to get into Qantas and the various aircraft you have flown over your career.
I am getting ideas and planning how I should go about it. I have talked to a couple of EK pilots but I'm just wondering the perspective from an Aussie pilot.

Regards Kc

 

[jb747]

I am wondering what pathway you went through to get into Qantas and the various aircraft you have flown over your career.
I am getting ideas and planning how I should go about it.

A pathway that worked for one pilot isn't necessarily going to have any relevance to another.

But...

I joined the RAN straight out of high school. Initially I was trained, not as a pilot, but as an observer (the RAN version of a navigator). I was initially posted the Wessex, and completed the last operational conversion on it. Then the Seakings arrived, and I was on the first course on them.

I eventually convinced the system to let me do the pilots course. I flew the CT4 and Macchi, and on completion was posted to the A4G. From there I went back to the CT4 as an instructor (my thinking being that if we got Harriers, then it would be good to have the instructor qual, and if we didn't, then being on a RAAF posting was a good place to be). As it turned out we didn't...

So, in one week I had a bunch of job offers. The RN was offering Sea Harriers to all of the A4 pilots, the RAN offered a helicopter conversion, and the RAAF offered F111s. They were all trumped by Qantas, who offered an SO slot on the 747 Classic.

Within QF I did 4 years as a 747 Classic SO, then 18 months as an FO. Then I jumped to the brand new 747-400, and did another 18 months as an FO there. Then a command slot came up on the 767, and I went there for the next 12 years. Then back to the 747-400 in command (for 5 years) and lastly to the A380..were I've been for 6 years, and which will see me out.

Two of my pilots' course mates are also Captains on the A380, having joined straight from school. They flew the Mirage and Caribou. There are also two other Captains who also started out as RAN observers.

 

[Kc4334]

Two of my pilots' course mates are also Captains on the A380, having joined straight from school. They flew the Mirage and Caribou. There are also two other Captains who also started out as RAN observers.

Would one of them be Richard de Crespigny I do recall reading his book and him stating he was on Caribous. Any way thanks a lot for the information. Do you have Instagram because being able to see some of the things that pilots see is awesome, and some of your videos I have seen are no exception.

Regards Kc

 

[jb747]

Would one of them be Richard de Crespigny I do recall reading his book and him stating he was on Caribous.

No, I was not on a course with RdC. He is just one of many pilots with an RAAF/RAN background. At breakfast this morning we had one test pilot (the real kind, ETPS), one Mirage/F18, and one from GA.

Do you have Instagram because being able to see some of the things that pilots see is awesome, and some of your videos I have seen are no exception.

I removed the videos, in part, because various people were downloading them, and then re-uploading with music, advertisement, etc. Pictures would sadly be much the same. They aren't likely to return.

 

[AviationNZ]

I'm curious about weight distribution on an aircraft.

This morning I had a fairly empty flight (guessing around 50% load factor), and the vast majority of the passengers were seated in the front half of the cabin.

I know often passengers may have to get moved to balance the plane, but this seems to generally be from side to side rather than front to back.

Is there no real need to balance a plane on that axis?

 

[jb747]

I'm curious about weight distribution on an aircraft.

This morning I had a fairly empty flight (guessing around 50% load factor), and the vast majority of the passengers were seated in the front half of the cabin.

I know often passengers may have to get moved to balance the plane, but this seems to generally be from side to side rather than front to back.

Is there no real need to balance a plane on that axis?

Quite the opposite. Fore and aft is the only axis that can kill you. Lateral is of much less importance.

Taking extremes, if the CofG is too far forward, the aircraft will pitch down, and full aft stick won't be able to stop it. This effect would make itself known on take off, when the aircraft simply would not rotate, and would end up off the far end of the runway. At least you have a chance with that. The opposite, with the CogG too far aft has led to many accidents over the years (most recent that I know of was a 747 freighter at Bagram, Afghanistan, it's on youtube). In that case the aircraft will pitch up at take off, straight into a stall. It is irrecoverable.

At lesser levels, a CofG that is too far forward will have to be countered by up elevator and trim. That will lead to increased drag. Too far aft, whilst good from a drag reduction point of view, will make the aircraft unstable, and again, go too far and it simply becomes unflyable.

If the passengers on your flight were loaded forward, then the CofG was being affected cargo.

 

[RooFlyer]

Seeking pilot's advice on how an average punter like me can judge whether an airline is safe to fly. I know what an open and subjective question that is, but let me give the context.

My holiday travels are taking me further and further away from 'mainstream' countries - Myanmar last year, Georgia and Azerbaijan this year and probably the 5 'Stans next year. So far I've managed to make my way via 'established' airlines and some long drives to avoid 'Dodgy Air'. However in the Stans, nearly all the tours I want to do require taking some internal flights - eg Turkmen Airlines, Kyrgyzstan Airlines, Air Bishkek. Other places I am looking at are similar - fly local airline or take a long drive and probably have to go to a private (expensive) tour.

On one hand I see that their planes don't seem to be crashing or serious incident (eg Aviation Herald searches) but on the other hand, I don't feel inclined to take an avoidable risk even if history is on their side (like getting lift with someone who always drinks 5 schooners after work ... never had a crash, mate .... I wouldn't do it).

One resource I've looked at is the list of airlines banned from the EU. That tells me that all Kyrgyzstan Airlines and all Kazakhstan airlines but one are banned from the EU and so personally I would never travel on them.

Any other resources where one might make a more informed decision? Are there actual statistics published by anyone that might be used, other than 'most safe' airline lists? I recall some comments up thread from pilots with opinions on the safety of certain mainstream airlines from close observation. But without he benefit of that position, what should the rest of us do? (And if you are laughing by this time, OK to tell me not to worry ).

 

[jb747]

There's nothing additional for you really. I make my mind up based on what I see and hear of aircraft in flight. For that reason, there are some that many on this forum consider safe that I would prefer to avoid.

The odds are in your favour...

 

[jb747]

Re: General Qantas Delays/Cancellations/etc. Discussion

Qantas A380 grounded in Los Angeles after mystery problem with hydraulics

One of the reasons that I am so disdainful of things written in the media, is that even easy to check facts are often wrong. Which always makes me wonder about the hard to check ones.

In this case "The world's largest passenger jet has three hydraulic systems – colour coded as blue, green and yellow – which operate independent of each other to ensure the aircraft has an adequate back up if it experiences problems."

It is not a description of the 380s hydraulics, but of the very different 320/330/340.

 

[Melburnian1]

Re: General Qantas Delays/Cancellations/etc. Discussion

So, jb747, what system in this area does the A388 use? Is there one 'hydraulic system', 'two...' or 'four' - or what arrangements did the manufacturer make in building this expensive aircraft to try to ensure maximum safe utiliisation and as low as possible in number failure episodes that are unlikely to compromise passenger and staff safety because of built in (if I am using the correct term) 'redundancy'?

This doesn't strike me as an 'easy fact to check' unless one has access to (in this case) a QF maintenance engineer or the technical manual that the manufacturer Airbus presumably produces to guide the maintenance engineers.

It's fine to criticise the media if they get facts wrong - many of us, perhaps selectively, do - but reporters such as this are writing for a general audience, not just airline staff or enthusiasts.

The story is mostly about the delays that QF passengers are once again experiencing, and presumably in that the facts are undisputed as flight delays are published on QF and airport websites.

 

[jb747]

Re: General Qantas Delays/Cancellations/etc. Discussion

This doesn't strike me as an 'easy fact to check' unless one has access to (in this case) A QF maintenance engineer or the technical manual that the manufacturer Airbus presumably produces to guide the maintenance engineers.

Try typing "a380 hydraulic system" into google.

 

[Melburnian1]

Re: General Qantas Delays/Cancellations/etc. Discussion

Unfortunately not everything on the Internet is trustworthy, so that's why I suggest the reporter needs to have had access to real life individuals with specific knowledge of (in this case) QF's A388s.

Those of us outside the aviation industry do not know if the system used on QF's A388s for hydraulics varies from that used by other operators. Unlikely, probably but like all transport operators, airlines can make specific changes because they believe that this will better suit them. Analogies such as looking at the seat design and configuration in an aircraft cabin may not prove anything in relation to electrical, mechanical or other technical systems, but every operator of an A380 has ordered different seating arrangements as far as I know.

 

[straitman]

Re: General Qantas Delays/Cancellations/etc. Discussion

This doesn't strike me as an 'easy fact to check' unless one has access to (in this case) a QF maintenance engineer or the technical manual that the manufacturer Airbus presumably produces to guide the maintenance engineers.

Melburnian1
As jb747 says the information you are seeking is readily available with only minimal search time and effort.
It's amazing what you can find on the Internet.

 

[jb747]

Re: General Qantas Delays/Cancellations/etc. Discussion

Unfortunately not everything on the Internet is trustworthy, so that's why I suggest the reporter needs to have had access to real life individuals with specific knowledge of (in this case) QF's A388s.

Those of us outside the aviation industry do not know if the system used on QF's A388s for hydraulics varies from that used by other operators. Unlikely, probably but like all transport operators, airlines can make specific changes because they believe that this will better suit them.

Manufacturers let airlines play with trivial options on their aircraft...like the seats. Whole cabins are still trivia. Engine models are tested and are simply a choice, just like buying a car. But, like a car, you don't get to choose the type of suspension...that's a part of the basic design. And so it is with hydraulics...they are so basic to the design that a different system would not be a different variant, but a whole new aircraft. Of course, if you were willing to pay the billions required, I guess anything is possible...but the reality is that even with different engines, the various models of an aircraft are close to identical...at least where it matters.

 

[jb747]

Re: General Qantas Delays/Cancellations/etc. Discussion

A bit of systems reading here....
A380 Flight Deck and Systems Briefing For Pilots

and here
A380 Briefing For Pilots Part 2

 

[QF029]

There's nothing additional for you really. I make my mind up based on what I see and hear of aircraft in flight. For that reason, there are some that many on this forum consider safe that I would prefer to avoid.

The odds are in your favour...

JB I understand that you probably don't want to publicly name your Airlines to avoid. Would you name 2 or 3 that you'd be happy to fly?

 

[Melburnian1]

Re: General Qantas Delays/Cancellations/etc. Discussion

Thank you jb747. I'm sure these will be helpful. We are not all experienced in the ways of engineering.

Perhaps the reporter may even view and (fat chance!) correct any misleading or incorrect technical statement that he made.

 

[jb747]

JB I understand that you probably don't want to publicly name your Airlines to avoid. Would you name 2 or 3 that you'd be happy to fly?

Pretty obvious ones really. BA, JAL, ANA, Virgin Atlantic, Cathay, ANZ. Most of the major US carriers, as long as you're on their mainline...even if the cabins aren't nice. Nobody who uses direct entry cadets as FOs.

But, it doesn't matter. There is this strange idea in Oz, that if CASA lets an airline fly here, then they must all be as safe as X. All CASA does is set a minimum bar...some airlines choose to be well above it, others barely get there. Given that people feel that way, they will pretty well always choose the cheapest flight. The end result is that the accountants at the very safe airlines will realise that commercially all of those training dollars are wasted.

As a pilot who has a great deal to do with international regulatory issues said to me the other day...the LCCs are now setting the standard for safety. They've set the absolute minimum, and everyone else is coming down to meet them.

Events like AF447, AirAsia, Aseana...will all become more common, as the more senior pilots retire. There's a whole generation out there who are systems operators, but not pilots. It's why I'm so in favour of pilots from GA, military, low level airlines...they all know how to fly without the fancy toys.

 

[russ]

Re: General Qantas Delays/Cancellations/etc. Discussion

The A380 briefing is interesting, but the attached pages scare me because they seem to indicate a link between the IFE and the coughpit system.





I see that they have put in diode symbols presumably indicating a one way flow of information, but I've read of plenty of so called "impenetrable" systems getting penetrated.

I recognise that these presentations are from before the launch of the aircraft, so the end result may differ from these presentations. However, the fact that people in Airbus thought it was a good enough idea to put in a presentation is quite disturbing!