Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

I know that pilots do lots of sim work before flying the actual aircraft for real but were you ever nervous when taking control of a new aircraft for the first time?

Always nervous to a degree. Training is like that anyway. I don't remember just how nervous I was, but I expect the first time in the A4G, 767, and the A380 were pretty high....

 

[Flying Fox]

Always nervous to a degree. Training is like that anyway. I don't remember just how nervous I was, but I expect the first time in the A4G, 767, and the A380 were pretty high....

Not nervous for your first B747 flight?

 

[whatmeworry]

Always nervous to a degree. Training is like that anyway. I don't remember just how nervous I was, but I expect the first time in the A4G, 767, and the A380 were pretty high....

How long before pilots think a new plane type is reliable?

 

[jb747]

Not nervous for your first B747 flight?

Perhaps surprising, but no, the 747 was a lovely aircraft to fly. As a Captain, it was very similar (albeit heavier and slower) than the 767. As an SO/FO it was extremely well behaved and predictable. And just like the sim...

 

[Himeno]

I was on last nights QF25 to HND. We had strong winds which cut around 40 minutes off the flight time, making the trip to HND in just over 8 hours (then due to the nature of HND vs NRT, landed as soon as we arrived ~0430). For a flight that's normally close to 9 hours, that sort of cut is a large part of the normal flight time...

How often do you have winds cut/add large amounts (say around 70+ minutes on a AU-LAX/DXB sector) to the flight time?

 

[jb747]

How long before pilots think a new plane type is reliable?

Reliable in what sense? They are never as reliable as trains (though I really don't know how reliable trains are, but they don't fall out of the sky). I suspect people have unrealistic expectations, fed from all sorts of sources. I remain amazed that aircraft quite reliably defeat gravity. Anything beyond that is good luck.

 

[jb747]

I was on last nights QF25 to HND. We had strong winds which cut around 40 minutes off the flight time, making the trip to HND in just over 8 hours (then due to the nature of HND vs NRT, landed as soon as we arrived ~0430). For a flight that's normally close to 9 hours, that sort of cut is a large part of the normal flight time...

How often do you have winds cut/add large amounts (say around 70+ minutes on a AU-LAX/DXB sector) to the flight time?

Scheduling is based on what has been achieved in the past. So whilst it's quite possible to have the winds on a given day give much better, or worse, results than the statistical average, it's rare for the conditions to deviate to any degree from the flight plan of the day (which uses the latest met data). If they do though, it's always to make you later, and to cost you fuel. Murphy is an aviator.

 

[whatmeworry]

Reliable in what sense? They are never as reliable as trains (though I really don't know how reliable trains are, but they don't fall out of the sky). I suspect people have unrealistic expectations, fed from all sorts of sources. I remain amazed that aircraft quite reliably defeat gravity. Anything beyond that is good luck.

I should clarify, but basically a new type of Aircraft from a manufacturer. For example the A380 or the 777, not citing these as examples but specifically some aircraft models that tend to have have more mechanically/technically problems when first put into service before these problems are rectified. Plus I am not limiting problems just to commercial planes.

 

[mjt57]

Very quick reply....The A380 was flown at 'green dot' (which is min drag) clean. On the day, that was approximately 200 knots.

Thinking about it, whilst it may be "slow" in aero terms, 200kt is around 400 km/h, about 100 kays faster than most high performance cars, for example.

Or when you land, you're doing way faster than most race cars, too.

 

[jb747]

I should clarify, but basically a new type of Aircraft from a manufacturer. For example the A380 or the 777, not citing these as examples but specifically some aircraft models that tend to have have more mechanically/technically problems when first put into service before these problems are rectified. Plus I am not limiting problems just to commercial planes.

Some aircraft have problems that attract the media, which can certainly magnify any issues that actually exist. It's pretty hard to put a time on it, but perhaps two/three years. The niggles that didn't show up in testing should have come and gone by then.

Another way to look at it is to consider aircraft models. The idea was never to buy the first version...perhaps that's why makers now seem to avoid -100 variants.

Of course, there are aircraft that are problematic for their entire lives. I doubt that anybody closely involved with Concorde was surprised by the AF accident.

 

[Mattg]

I'm wondering, would you ever depart DFW operating QF8 with anything less than a 100% fuel load?

 

[jb747]

I'm wondering, would you ever depart DFW operating QF8 with anything less than a 100% fuel load?

I've only done that flight once...and the answer on that occasion was yes. But, having said that, the tanks are so huge that you never fill them up. The limit you hit most often is Maximum Takeoff Weight. Subtract the offered payload (pax and freight), and the empty weight, from that and you end up with the maximum possible fuel load for the trip. If that isn't enough, you need to get rid of some payload, or do some lateral thinking.

When I flew out of Dallas, I was about 5 tonnes below max weight, so I could have fitted that much more fuel on. The planned arrival fuel was quite adequate, so I didn't consider that I needed any more.

 

[Mattg]

I've only done that flight once...and the answer on that occasion was yes. But, having said that, the tanks are so huge that you never fill them up. The limit you hit most often is Maximum Takeoff Weight. Subtract the offered payload (pax and freight), and the empty weight, from that and you end up with the maximum possible fuel load for the trip. If that isn't enough, you need to get rid of some payload, or do some lateral thinking.

When I flew out of Dallas, I was about 5 tonnes below max weight, so I could have fitted that much more fuel on. The planned arrival fuel was quite adequate, so I didn't consider that I needed any more.

Interesting. In that case a better question is probably "would you ever depart with less than maximum payload?" - which you did answer.

Considering you could have taken on more fuel and chose not to, was this because the aircraft was "lightly" loaded or due to favourable weather? Or would it be unlikely to reach max takeoff weight anyway?

I would have thought that it would be normal to reach the maximum allowable weight on that route, considering that the load is apparently restricted.

 

[jb747]

Interesting. In that case a better question is probably "would you ever depart with less than maximum payload?" - which you did answer.

We have what is called the "offered payload". Basically that's the passengers and freight that the company would like me to carry on the day. It's extremely rare to refuse any. Basically passengers don't weigh enough to gain any useful load by displacing them...and it sort of defeats the purpose. Freight can be offloaded, and you might gain a useful amount of fuel by leaving a pallet behind, but again, it will have to be carried by someone else. We won't really consider an offload unless we're at the point of looking at a refuelling stop (which has its own drawbacks, and may not even be possible).

Considering you could have taken on more fuel and chose not to, was this because the aircraft was "lightly" loaded or due to favourable weather? Or would it be unlikely to reach max takeoff weight anyway?

The fuel load that the company had planned was adequate. There's no reason to take extra, just for mum and the kids. As it turns out, I've still got that flight plan. POB was planned at around 400, and we were able to take all of the standby passengers as well. The weather in Sydney must have been ok, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was a lovely day. It didn't have any aviation impact.

I would have thought that it would be normal to reach the maximum allowable weight on that route, considering that the load is apparently restricted.

My flight is only a sample of one, so you shouldn't read too much into it. I expect that they regularly depart at max weight, especially if Sydney has any weather issues. I don't know if they have anywhere near the sort of freight loads that are common out of LA...and that could make 10 or 15 tonnes of load available.

 

[VulpesVulpes]

Of course, there are aircraft that are problematic for their entire lives. I doubt that anybody closely involved with Concorde was surprised by the AF accident.

Hi JB,

Could you expand on this comment a little more? While I understand the Concorde was a massive leap in aviation technology, from what I understand it was somewhat incident free and totally crash free from launch in '76 until the year 2000. In my layman's eyes I would consider that a success if it took 24yrs before something went really wrong, especially considering it was such a new concept, built in that era with revolutionary things like auto-throttle and fly-by-wire.

Compared to other aircraft, how does it stack up?
- The 737 had that pesky rudder hard over issue (mid life-cycle)
- The Dreamliner caught alight a few times with battery issues (and was grounded early in life-cycle)
- The A380 that blew chunks on QF32 and if it was helped or hindered by composite materials (fairly early in life-cycle but several years in)

Reliable in what sense? They are never as reliable as trains (though I really don't know how reliable trains are, but they don't fall out of the sky). I suspect people have unrealistic expectations, fed from all sorts of sources. I remain amazed that aircraft quite reliably defeat gravity. Anything beyond that is good luck.

This hits home too - I am totally trusting in that I know aircraft are safe from a ignorance point of view. I am happy just knowing they don't regularly fall out of the sky. I am sure you are equally as trusting (with better knowledge) otherwise you would have looked for another line of work long before now.

Due to where I work I have a lot of those scale models lying around the office and I picked one up on Friday, it reminded me how it's kinda crazy aircraft reliably defeat gravity but that didn't stop me getting on one today (my primary concern was if VA were planning on pulling out the dreaded Salsa Dip 'snack'... they didn't so I was happy). I have a few RAAF black-hand friends who work on various aircraft from the P-3 to the Super hornet, KC-30 & C-17 and they all share to various degrees a knowledge-induced fear of flying (the last time I dragged one guy on a plane it involved medication) and they all share fairly strong scepticism on the composite materials subject (metal fatigues, then stops working vs composite materials work until the moment they don't)

I really hope your answer is no, but do you expect that each aircraft type will have major life threatening incidents in their life-cycle? You just hope you're not the bloke that drew a short straw when a composite section goes bust or a battery goes critical trans-pac, even if flights like QF32 and UA811 could have been worse. Maybe my 32 flights in 38 weeks isn't the best idea? haha

 

[opusman]

from what I understand it was somewhat incident free and totally crash free from launch in '76 until the year 2000. In my layman's eyes I would consider that a success if it took 24yrs before something went really wrong

All depends how you measure it. The most common metric seems to be fatal crashes per million flights; on that basis, by 2013 the 744 had a crash rate of 0.07 and the Concorde had a rate of 11.36 (that is, Concorde was 162 times more dangerous than the 744).

More stats here.

 

[jb747]

Could you expand on this comment a little more? While I understand the Concorde was a massive leap in aviation technology, from what I understand it was somewhat incident free and totally crash free from launch in '76 until the year 2000. In my layman's eyes I would consider that a success if it took 24yrs before something went really wrong, especially considering it was such a new concept, built in that era with revolutionary things like auto-throttle and fly-by-wire.

24 years, but with a tiny aircraft sample, and very low overall hours.

Anyway...some reading.
Five potentially catastrophic incidents plagued Concorde in early years - Europe - World - The Independent

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/17/concorde.world

Untold Story of the Concorde Disaster

The first two are media, but the third is a very reliable source.

Beyond that, the actual accident report is here. http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2000/f-sc000725a/pdf/f-sc000725a.pdf
The pertinent section is 1.16.4.2

 

[RooFlyer]

Wow, thanks for that third link especially. I happened to visit an old BA Concorde at the Seattle Museum of Flight just last week and I tried to think at the time if the Paris crash had been covered on one of the 'Air Crash' shows; I tried to recall it as the fire never seemed to me (mug punter) a sufficient reason for the crash.

 

[jb747]

Compared to other aircraft, how does it stack up?

Extremely badly. Other aircraft, even ones with faults that were endemic, still had dramatically better statistics.

- The 737 had that pesky rudder hard over issue (mid life-cycle)

Design flaw. But, even though there were vast numbers of 737s, it was still an extremely rare event. And, as the last aircraft showed, it could be recovered...once you knew what you were dealing with.

- The Dreamliner caught alight a few times with battery issues (and was grounded early in life-cycle)

The lithium battery problem still isn't solved, they've (literally) contained it. Airbus decided with the A350 to keep away from such batteries, and continues to use a RAT for emergency power.

- The A380 that blew chunks on QF32 and if it was helped or hindered by composite materials (fairly early in life-cycle but several years in)

Manufacturing fault. The aircraft itself handled the engine deconstruction quite well. Construction materials had nothing to do with it.

This hits home too - I am totally trusting in that I know aircraft are safe from a ignorance point of view. I am happy just knowing they don't regularly fall out of the sky. I am sure you are equally as trusting (with better knowledge) otherwise you would have looked for another line of work long before now.

I expect them not to deliver me a problem that I can't resolve. I don't expect them to be problem free. Of course, you need to help yourself there. Sensible application (and acceptance) of MELs is part of that i.e. keep the odds stacked as much in your favour as you can. It's one reason why I often have issues with threads that rattle on about departure delays due aircraft issues (or why airline X never seems to have problems, compared to airline Y). I've sometimes been astounded by the reaction of some passengers if I have a technical delay...and can only wonder what their cars are like.

I have a few RAAF black-hand friends who work on various aircraft from the P-3 to the Super hornet, KC-30 & C-17 and they all share to various degrees a knowledge-induced fear of flying (the last time I dragged one guy on a plane it involved medication) and they all share fairly strong scepticism on the composite materials subject (metal fatigues, then stops working vs composite materials work until the moment they don't)

Composites have already been around for many decades. And aircraft like the C17, F18, etc, haven't had overwhelming issues. Anyway, there's much more to be afraid of in flying than fear of new materials. Old things, like weather, represent a much more real and pervasive threat.

I really hope your answer is no, but do you expect that each aircraft type will have major life threatening incidents in their life-cycle? You just hope you're not the bloke that drew a short straw when a composite section goes bust or a battery goes critical trans-pac, even if flights like QF32 and UA811 could have been worse.

My answer certainly won't be no. The act of pushing a large lump of metal, or composite, through the air at around 1,000 feet per second will alway have days when it all goes awry. The odds of that happening should continue to improve, but I very much doubt that the sort of improvement that has been seen over the past 20 years will continue.

UA 811 was a pretty classic example of, not only poor design, but also of pretty poor management. As an aside, I've just discovered that one of my neighbours was on that flight...interesting tale.

QF32 was a single engine failure on a four engined aircraft. Whilst there's a bit of an industry around it now, and it was certainly a complex systems event, the reality is much more mundane than the myth.

 

[opusman]

QF32 was a single engine failure on a four engined aircraft. Whilst there's a bit of an industry around it now, and it was certainly a complex systems event, the reality is much more mundane than the myth.

Yes from reading RdC's book I definitely got the impression that once the incident had occurred and the plane didn't go down immediately, it was all actually fairly routine.