Ask The Pilot

[clazman]

With your comments do you have to abide by QF social media policies?

Do QF recognise your comments as a positive for QF and reward you in any way

 

[JohnM]

Huh?! 39 sectors in 7 years doesn't sound quite right... that's only 5 and a bit per year!! Even over 1 year it still sounds waaaay too low! I am assuming 1 sector = 1 cycle = 1 takeoff + 1 landing?

I think that is just JB's driving of the respective birds.

 

[flychrisfly]

I think that is just JB's driving of the respective birds.

Ahhhh, yes, I think you are right. Thanks!

 

[jb747]

Qantas routinely offers domestic connections to shanghai, and other cites, with as little as one hour transit in sydney. You know for certain that none of these 'tardy passengers' were domestic connections? with domestic flights that arrived into SYD bang on time?

If I was on an airline sanctioned connection, I'd expect the plane to be held as long as reasonably possible. Cost to the airline is irrelevant from my passenger perspective, as long as I'm moving as quick as I can to make the connection (eg not stopping to buy duty free etc etc)

Sadly this thread has a habit of coming back to being a pseudo Qantas thread, when it's really supposed to be much more general. I'm not a QF spokesperson, and if that is where the thread is going to stay, then I'll have to discontinue it.

As a generic answer, aircraft are not going to wait for one passenger. But, you never know on the day.

 

[Skyhigh777]

Hi JB. I was watching an episode of Ultimate Airports Dubai the other day and they had a segment about an A380 trainee, they basically followed his progress from the first sim sessions to his first flight in the right seat. He mentioned that the plane felt a bit different than in did in the simulator; that it felt much more nose heavy.

I was was just wondering what your first impressions were of the A380. What was it like flying it for the first time? Did anything about it surprise you? How did it compare to flying it in the simulator?

Thanks in advance.

 

[jb747]

Hi JB. I was watching an episode of Ultimate Airports Dubai the other day and they had a segment about an A380 trainee, they basically followed his progress from the first sim sessions to his first flight in the right seat. He mentioned that the plane felt a bit different than in did in the simulator; that it felt much more nose heavy.

I was was just wondering what your first impressions were of the A380. What was it like flying it for the first time? Did anything about it surprise you? How did it compare to flying it in the simulator?

The simulators are very good, but the aircraft always feel different in some way. In particular, the visuals have come a long way, but they aren't a patch on looking out the real window. Feedback in the real world, is much better than the simulator. You eventually learn that the sim is a related, but different, model of the aircraft, and treat it that way.

Some sims are better than others too. We always wondered just what aircraft the 767-200 simulator was actually simulating, 'cos it wasn't a 767.

 

[opusman]

I've seen a few references to being "left seat certified" or "right seat certified". What are the actual differences between the seats in terms of controlling the aircraft? Obviously both pilots are able to fly the plane and land and take-off from either seat, so is it simply that one of the seats is where the captain always sits?

 

[mjt57]

Must admit that I've always thought that if we all did that, across the entire industry, it would fix a few issues.

I wish that you guys would do it.

At LAX recently we were waiting to board and waiting, and waiting. While we kept listening to announcement after announcement, "Will passengers Fred Nurk and Kylie Jones come to Gate 44. Your flight is about to depart."

It held the flight up. Which means that another flight wanting to use that gate was held up, or if it meant a late arrival into Sydney past the curfew. So yeah, do the Jetstar thing. If they're not there 30 minutes before departure then bugger 'em.

 

[straitman]

I've seen a few references to being "left seat certified" or "right seat certified". What are the actual differences between the seats in terms of controlling the aircraft? Obviously both pilots are able to fly the plane and land and take-off from either seat, so is it simply that one of the seats is where the captain always sits?

An interesting question with not quite as an simple answer as you might imagine.

An aircraft will feel the same from either seat however the location of items is obviously different. For example in an airliner the engine controls are in the middle so each pilot must use a different hand. Another example is a/c with nose wheel staring normally only have that as accessible from one pilots seat. (normally the captains seat)

An aeroplane captain will normally occupy the LHS.
An aeroplane co-pilot/first officer will normally occupy the RHS.
A helicopter captain will normally occupy the RHS. (For control reasons)
A helicopter co-pilot/first officer will normally occupy the LHS.

After that the complications can take over. If a check captain or flying instructor is in charge they may occupy either or neither seat depending upon the circumstances and who and what they are checking.
If a first officer is undergoing training they may occupy either seat depending upon the specific training requirement.

This can then vary again depending upon the use of simulators. i.e. Airlines use simulators extensively where as the much smaller operators may not use them very much.

The extreme example of this will be with military pilots learning to fly the F-35. All training will be in a simulator and the first a/c flight will be a solo as there are no dual F-35s. Go back a few generations and the Sabre fighter jet was the same. (i.e. single seat only)

 

[Himeno]

Most sectors (and hours) is OQB (39 sectors/393 hours). Least is almost a dead heat between OQL and OQK...both with 159 hours. 16 and 14 sectors. OQA is about half way down the list at (23/222).

Can you tell which aircraft in the fleet you are on just from how it 'feels' without having seen the rego or any logs?

 

[straitman]

Can you tell which aircraft in the fleet you are on just from how it 'feels' without having seen the rego or any logs?

Not talking for jb747 but there are often small differences.

From my experience most a/c feel similar though those that have been damaged or had particular roles may feel different.

Going back to my RAAF pilot training there was one Macchi jet trainer (A7-011 I think) that and done a wheels up landing and been repaired. It was slightly twisted and would not spin in one direction and was quite violent in the other. In level flight if it was balanced in the front it was out of balance in the rear and vice versa. Another (of many) example was an Iroquois (A2-380) that was used extensively for chemical spraying in Vietnam. Years later that/c still smelt of the sprays.

 

[Julesmac]

Re seating as per a couple of posts above. I was lucky enough to be allowed to sit in the jump seat of a QF flight coming in to Heathrow in 1990 ( you have no idea how excited it was, my first trip to England, to meet up with all my cousins, and taking Dad back for the first time in 40 years. And Daryl Somers tried to bump me from the seat but the lovely captain (I assume) said nup - I had first dibs) It was such a thrill to come flying in over London, seeing the landmarks.... I snagged another one, a couple of years later flying in to Honolulu, but that was at night so not half so exciting.
These days, does any of the crew sit in the jump seat any more?

 

[RooFlyer]

Following a aircraft accident / incident / hull loss, particularly where crew reaction may make a difference (by way of example only, NW85 hard-over rudder; incidents involving unexpected actions of Autopilot), will the airline off its own bat make a series of incremental advisories or instructions to crew to anticipate or mitigate a repeat, based on say, interim reports or even "pretty obvious" un-official conclusions? Or do they await official conclusions, and perhaps the aircraft manufacturer's considered then changed protocols, to make the airline's own changes?

In a similar vein, in the course of an incident or crash investigation, say in the USA or in Europe, do the investigators provide their peers in other countries advice on their current thinking or interim conclusions, prior to any official interim or final report?

I'm thinking that the official route, even in relatively 'straightforward' investigations can take some time, and some form of formal earlier advisory or 'be aware that ...' may be useful.

 

[jb747]

A
The extreme example of this will be with military pilots learning to fly the F-35. All training will be in a simulator and the first a/c flight will be a solo as there are no dual F-35s. Go back a few generations and the Sabre fighter jet was the same. (i.e. single seat only)

And in the days of the Sabre, there were no simulators. So, get airborne, and then 'what do I do now'. I think they generally used a chase aircraft, so you weren't quite as alone as it might seem.

 

[jb747]

Can you tell which aircraft in the fleet you are on just from how it 'feels' without having seen the rego or any logs?

Some of the 747s and 767s you could pick. OJB, for instance, had markedly heavier controls than the average. But, the Airbus FBW takes away all real feedback, so they all feel exactly the same.

 

[jb747]

These days, does any of the crew sit in the jump seat any more?

Perhaps amazing...but some of the cabin crew have probably never even set foot in the coughpit. 99 times out of a hundred, if a seat is offered, it won't be taken up.

 

[jb747]

Following a aircraft accident / incident / hull loss, particularly where crew reaction may make a difference (by way of example only, NW85 hard-over rudder; incidents involving unexpected actions of Autopilot), will the airline off its own bat make a series of incremental advisories or instructions to crew to anticipate or mitigate a repeat, based on say, interim reports or even "pretty obvious" un-official conclusions? Or do they await official conclusions, and perhaps the aircraft manufacturer's considered then changed protocols, to make the airline's own changes?

In a similar vein, in the course of an incident or crash investigation, say in the USA or in Europe, do the investigators provide their peers in other countries advice on their current thinking or interim conclusions, prior to any official interim or final report?

I'm thinking that the official route, even in relatively 'straightforward' investigations can take some time, and some form of formal earlier advisory or 'be aware that ...' may be useful.

Airlines are very reluctant to do anything without feedback or approval from the manufacturers. Often the response is simply "no technical objection". I presume the feedback during any investigation to the makers is pretty good, but I doubt that there is any direct feedback to the various operators.

The manufacturers may come out with 'red' bulletins at any point, giving us a procedure or warnings in response to events.

The case in point at the moment would have to be AirAsia. There seems to be no solid information around at all... That leads us all to assume that a) the pilots messed it up really badly and b) the aircraft itself was a big factor. The first part of that assumption comes from the silence of the national investigators, and the second from Airbus not coming out and clearing itself. Basically, the pilot body mostly assumes it was a replay of AF447.

 

[jb747]

I've seen a few references to being "left seat certified" or "right seat certified". What are the actual differences between the seats in terms of controlling the aircraft? Obviously both pilots are able to fly the plane and land and take-off from either seat, so is it simply that one of the seats is where the captain always sits?

Whilst I could fly the aircraft from the right seat...I'd do a pretty bad job of it. My right hand hasn't flown for 23 years.

The SOs and the training Captains are the only ones who regularly sit in either seat, and they do so in the simulator as well. You really have to learn where everything is from both sides...you become very 'handed'.

 

[FuzzyAUS]

Perhaps amazing...but some of the cabin crew have probably never even set foot in the coughpit. 99 times out of a hundred, if a seat is offered, it won't be taken up.

That makes me so sad, I got to sit in there several times, 767 take-off and landing, couple of 747 landings... would love to do it many more times!!!

 

[RooFlyer]

Airlines are very reluctant to do anything without feedback or approval from the manufacturers. Often the response is simply "no technical objection". <snip>.

Thanks again, JB. With the response you mention, do you mean that an operator might have contacted the manufacturer and said something like 'We understand that such-and-such might have happened during incident X; so we propose to change our procedures as follows, to mitigate the risk .... Is that OK by you? " ?

If that's what you meant, its what I might expect an operator to do prior to an official finding. If the operator's strong internal opinion is that its likely that something particular (either airplane or on-board procedures) might have been responsible for an incident, then I'd think they would almost be negligent in not pro-actively undertaking something to mitigate the risk, as long as its not detrimental in other ways.