Ask The Pilot

[raleyoz]

Just on QF11 in Syd, Fo noticed a leak in the landing gear, had it checked and it was serious so needs fixing, delay 1 hour so far

 

[jb747]

JB747 - was a passenger on last Wednesday's CX347 scheduled 10:00am A330 service from Beijing to Hong Kong. We boarded the aircraft on time and the doors were closed about 10 minutes before our scheduled departure. The scheduled departure time came and went with the Captain coming on about 20 minutes after the scheduled departure saying the airspace between Beijing and Hong Kong had been "closed down" and that Clearance Delivery weren't able to give them a departure time. For the next 2 1/2 hrs we remained onboard the aircraft with the Captain continuing to apologise for the delay. We eventually pushed back about 2hrs 50min after our scheduled departure time then waited another 60+ minutes in the queue for departure. The Captain on the flight was an ex Ansett guy and explained these sorts of delays were becoming more prevalent as the northern Chinese Airspace became more and more saturated and in addition Chinese Airspace was controlled by the military and they could shut things down quickly without any advanced notice to airlines. From an operational perspective when you flew the QF29/30 services between HKG-LHR-HKG did you ever come across these sorts of scenarios in Chinese airspace? Are there any other countries that you fly over that have similar "saturation" issues and/or where the military control the airspace? From a passenger perspective these sorts of delays must make it tough for airlines from a flight planning / operations perspective.

I guess the Chinese airspace is a bit unusual because there is so much civil air traffic, combined with military ownership of the skies. In my flights through their airspace, I never had any issues with them at all. There are many places where the skies become saturated, not so much because of a lack of space, but because of military activity. Afghanistan is the obvious example...there's only about four main routes across it, and a lot of aircraft.

Generally though, if the communications are good, then there won't be too much of a problem.

 

[jb747]

If the aircraft starts to stray off course, say to heavy crosswinds or whatever, do you get an alert or alarm or does the auto-go-magic stuff merely pull it back on course?

If it's in NAV (or LNAV Boeing), then it will be exactly on course, no matter what the crosswind. If the system starts to degrade (due to GPS outage) then it will warn us if the potential error exceeds the required navigation performance... That tolerance might be a couple of miles enroute, down to .3 on an RNAV arrival. Since the integration of GPS into the systems, the errors are measure in gnat's whatevers. I've never seen any errors worth worrying about, outside of the sim.

If you get an alarm on an engine, say bearing vibes or metal temps or something, are you able to trend the offending points? How easy is it to select specific points to trend?

We don't 'trend' anything. Yes, we might notice something slowly changing, but until it generates a warning (and an associated ECAM/EICAS) we don't do anything about it. Many warnings come with no ECAM actions, and are really just for our information, and for engineers to deal with later.

 

[jb747]

I was watching a FO do a walk around yesterday and wondered if you have ever found anything that was quite alarming?

Alarming? No. The engineers often have a look before we do, so it's not common to find anything. You may find evidence of a bird strike, or perhaps a tyre that's getting a bit worn. Some aircraft types are known for leaking oil, so in that case if there's no leak it must be out of oil. Hydraulic leaks sometimes show up.

Preflights are mostly looking for specific things. Probes that are undamaged and have covers removed. Tyre and brake wear. Engine cowl locks. Gear pins. And looking away from the aircraft...what's happening with the weather.

 

[mjt57]

In the paper today there's an article about a new East/West Runway for MEL.

Residents demand Warren Truss step in to force Melbourne Airport on runway process

They say that "for the first time they'll have planes flying low overhead" (or words to that effect).

I'm looking at Google Maps right now. The existing runway seems to be in line with existing suburbs now.

What am I missing here, JB?

Edit: looking at Google Maps, it appears that it may go at the southern end of the airport. If I'm right it means that there is some local infrastructure that may need to go and a golf course to the west as well.

I wonder how flat that land is...

 

[jb747]

In the paper today there's an article about a new East/West Runway for MEL.

Residents demand Warren Truss step in to force Melbourne Airport on runway process

They say that "for the first time they'll have planes flying low overhead" (or words to that effect).

I'm looking at Google Maps right now. The existing runway seems to be in line with existing suburbs now.

What am I missing here, JB?

Edit: looking at Google Maps, it appears that it may go at the southern end of the airport. If I'm right it means that there is some local infrastructure that may need to go and a golf course to the west as well.

I wonder how flat that land is...

I had an older copy of Melways, that clearly showed where two additional runways were planned. Sadly, as always happens in Australia, anything to do with infrastructure ends up in the too hard pile, and nothing was done about them...until too late it seems.

One was meant to go to the south of the current terminal, just north of the maintenance hangars. Basically in line with the taxi holding area. Of late a large amount of construction has happened in that area, so it seems to me that the airport owners are more interested in placing businesses there than they are in serving aircraft.

Local councils knew that runways were planned there...so of course they released the land for housing. Anyone who bought there did so in the knowledge that runways were on the plan. But probably also with the hope that as Australia hasn't built too many runways in recent memory that it wouldn't actually happen.

Melbourne airport is saturated now any time there is a strong north south wind. Very strong westerlies are even more problematic, as they can preclude long distance ops for aircraft that need 34/16. 27 is too short to be a reasonable alternative (another issue with Australia...why can't they build a decent length). Worth noting that pretty well all departures would be to the west. 09 is virtually never used.

I'm sure I've said it before, but Australian aviation infrastructure is largely a bad joke. Just look at the issues with getting a decent ILS....

 

[por930]

Recently, the Gold Coast airport south of Brisbane has been embroiled in the usual debates about providing an ILS for one of its runways. The local council were spruiking on about how fantastic a Chinese airline maybe flying into this airport, yet at the same time the same Council saying they appose the proposed ILS system for the airport and it will mean on occasions, some aircraft will divert to Brisbane. You would think safety would prevail. though common sense and politics do not really go together. Over the years, the ILS systems have proven very reliable.
An alternative could be the GPS. Do you see this is a viable(cheaper, yet safe) alternative? For large aircraft like A380, 777 and A330/350, what do you consider the minimum safe approach distance to get established in IMC (bad weather)

 

[Melburnian1]

I had an older copy of Melways, that clearly showed where two additional runways were planned. Sadly, as always happens in Australia, anything to do with infrastructure ends up in the too hard pile, and nothing was done about them...until too late it seems.

One was meant to go to the south of the current terminal, just north of the maintenance hangars. Basically in line with the taxi holding area. Of late a large amount of construction has happened in that area, so it seems to me that the airport owners are more interested in placing businesses there than they are in serving aircraft.

\I'm sure I've said it before, but Australian aviation infrastructure is largely a bad joke.

jb747, I am happy to be corrected, but as far as I can see from Melbourne Airport - Flight Information, Shopping & Parking and other sources, the third MEL runway is still going to be constructed - and supposedly open by about 2020. That implies that the construction that has been occurring is all part of the 2008 (revised in 2013) master plan.

To be fair to governments, building infrastructure in advance of when it is required (and that would have arguably been the case for many years if a third runway had been built in say 1980 or even 1990) also has a cost. Capital is normally scarce.

Nonetheless, your comment about nothing being done about infrastructure until too late is right on the money and true not just of aviation but of rail and ports and to a much lesser extent, roads.

 

[mjt57]

jb747, I am happy to be corrected, but as far as I can see from Melbourne Airport - Flight Information, Shopping & Parking and other sources, the third MEL runway is still going to be constructed .

What are we supposed to be looking at here? When I clicked on it it took me to MEL Airport's home page...

 

[mjt57]

Local councils knew that runways were planned there...so of course they released the land for housing. Anyone who bought there did so in the knowledge that runways were on the plan. But probably also with the hope that as Australia hasn't built too many runways in recent memory that it wouldn't actually happen.

And this reminds me of the story that you once told of land development near your airforce/navy base and a flypast on the morning on one of the land auctions...

 

[Melburnian1]

mjt57, here is one reference - Sectuion 6.3.7 on page 6 is one of the keys:

http://melbourneairport.com.au/docs/140206_master-plan_chapter-6.pdf

 

[jb747]

And this reminds me of the story that you once told of land development near your airforce/navy base and a flypast on the morning on one of the land auctions...

Low level circuits. At least the buyers knew what they were getting....

 

[jb747]

jb747, I am happy to be corrected, but as far as I can see from Melbourne Airport - Flight Information, Shopping & Parking and other sources, the third MEL runway is still going to be constructed - and supposedly open by about 2020. That implies that the construction that has been occurring is all part of the 2008 (revised in 2013) master plan.

It's an interesting read, but all it is, is a plan. As I see it they'd like to build a third runway, but there seems to be no hard start date/finances, etc. I guess it will be delivered by the VFT that carries the NBN.

It's also curious that they don't seem to apply much weight to crosswind issues. After saying that a north/south runway will be less impacted, they then move on to saying that they like the other alignment for what are basically non operational reasons. The delays on a windy day are already bad, and this will do nothing to alleviate them.

I wonder when 3,000 metres became a desirable length?

 

[jb747]

Re Coolangatta...a GLS approach looks pretty much identical to an ILS. So in IMC you'll still need 7-8 miles straight finals. It would be cheaper. Does it make any real difference to the path? Sort of doubt it.

 

[Melburnian1]

jb747, my reading of it was that the MEL airport lessee says that the reason for choosing the east-west alignment was that a second north-south runway would mean many aircraft crossing the existing north-south runway, which if I am not mistaken is an operational (and safety) reason. It acknowledged that a north-south runway might be considered the logical choice by many, but has relegated that to its 'ultimate' fourth of four runways plan.

While you and your colleagues are presumably proscribed from commenting publicly on such matters (unless they head an industrial organisation like a pilots' association), it would be good if someone with an equivalent amount of specialist knowledge - of the likes of markis10 or similar - could contact 'The Age' and ensure that a public discussion of these more technical, but most relevant, issues commences. Once it is built, we are stuck with it. Based on its previous record, I don't think obtaining finance for a new runway will be insurmountably difficult for the lessees: they've built almost everything else they said they would, and an additional runway is perceived by them as vital when (according to their anaysis) MEL begins to exceed peak period capacity sometime between 2018 and 2022.

 

[coriander]

What are we supposed to be looking at here? When I clicked on it it took me to MEL Airport's home page...

From there, it's only a couple of clicks to Melbourne Airport 2013 Master Plan | Melbourne Airport

 

[jb747]

jb747, my reading of it was that the MEL airport lessee says that the reason for choosing the east-west alignment was that a second north-south runway would mean many aircraft crossing the existing north-south runway, which if I am not mistaken is an operational (and safety) reason. It acknowledged that a north-south runway might be considered the logical choice by many, but has relegated that to its 'ultimate' fourth of four runways plan.

They also mention cheaper...which I take as having much more to do with making it the preferred option. Whilst crossing runways isn't necessarily desirable, it seems to work pretty well in Dubai, LAX and SFO. Incursions can happen anywhere, but as often as not seem to be related to taxiways, not crossings (which always prick up the ears).

The upshot is that with a strongish northerly, the airport will be back to single runway operations, so the money spent on the new runway will do nothing to help on those days...which seem to happen reasonably often. Operating aircraft to their limits in crosswinds, as a matter of course, will eventually come to bite you. The new 27 is too short to be of interest to the bigger aircraft on departure, and they will end up operating across the other traffic, with the added bonus of actually crossing two live runways.

Anyway, we're talking about Australian airport infrastructure. I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Melburnian1]

Thank you jb747: great, simple explanation.

Assuming that you are correct (which even for those of us with little specialist knowledge a look at the Australia's official weather forecasts & weather radar - Bureau of Meteorology site's historic MEL weather information can confirm) in time this will be sub optimal for passengers because the capacity of MEL will be lower than it could be if the airport lessee listened to individuals like you with the technical knowledge.

At this stage, it looks like approval of what you are suggesting is a poor choice for a third MEL runway by Minister Truss in Canberra is a formality. It is amazing that such a major investment decision that is arguably critical for Victoria's future seems about to occur with such limited public debate. Stakeholders in industries like tourism have been silent, at least in the public media. They may not realise the importance of optimal siting of 'scarce' infrastructure such as airport runways.

 

[Alanslegal]

Re: emergency landings and disembarkation

A few days ago we talked about the CX flight that had to make an emergency landing, so it made me think.....

I guess in general terms, if flying A to B but made a diversion to C, could I just stay at C assuming I meet the entry requirements?

 

[jb747]

Re: emergency landings and disembarkation

A few days ago we talked about the CX flight that had to make an emergency landing, so it made me think.....

I guess in general terms, if flying A to B but made a diversion to C, could I just stay at C assuming I meet the entry requirements?

If it's just a diversion for a splash and go, then it will hopefully only take about 30 minutes, and is quite likely to be parked at a remote stand. As soon as you add issues of getting loaders to remove your luggage, then that will add to the delay...so we won't allow it.

But with cabin luggage only, it may be allowed. Not guaranteed though. Last time I saw this, the delay in getting one person off would have stopped the entire operation due to crew hours.