Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

Was just thinking about flight plans and was wondering whether or not you had any lying around and would consider deciphering one for us? That is of course it is worth doing and not extremely time consuming!

The flight plans are company documents, so I don't think I can post one here, but I can give you a summary.

The first page consists of three parts. Firstly an overall summary of the flight. Aircraft type and registration, scheduled departure and arrival times, planned flight time, planned weights (maximum and landing), the route (in a form that can be copied and pasted into the Jeppesen application). The second is the ATC flight plan, and the third is any dispatcher notes (i.e. comments about fog, or holding, etc).

Page two is looks at a number of decision points. The most limiting all engine, depressurised, and engine out spots, plus their fuel requirements versus the planned figures.

Page three starts with breakdown of the planned fuel, and is where any crew adjustments to the loading occur. The next part is a weight analysis.

Page four is a listing of 'secondary summaries'. These are basically fuel calculations for different altitudes and speeds, and give some rough information for any additional fuel decisions.

The next couple of pages contain the navigation log. Every way point, distances, tracks, times, safety heights, fuel usage, etc. It's used in flight to keep track of how things are going.

Then we get to met data, with wind and temperature information for all of the waypoints, at multiple flight levels.

The last page is a nav log for any planned diversion.

 

[Major]

Are these E documents or do you end up with a small booklet ?

 

[jb747]

Are these E documents or do you end up with a small booklet ?

Both. We get them via our iPads a couple of hours before the flights (along with NOTAMS, and weather charts). The flight plan component will also be printed out at the airport. It won't be too much longer before the paper component disappears entirely (as has already happened with the charts and approach plates).

 

[por930]

Both. We get them via our iPads a couple of hours before the flights (along with NOTAMS, and weather charts). The flight plan component will also be printed out at the airport. It won't be too much longer before the paper component disappears entirely (as has already happened with the charts and approach plates).

jb, A company called simbrief, provides flight plans for the flight sim community...At the end of the article, is a link to a full copy of a flight plan. Is it similar to your flight plan layout and content?

SimBrief effectively simulates the Flight Dispatcher's role, allowing virtual pilots to generate in-depth Briefing Packages containing the same layout and data as the ones used by real airline pilots every day. SimBrief is capable of generating flight plans which include:

• A detailed waypoint listing (i.e. Navlog)
• Accurate performance and fuel calculations for over 50 aircraft types
• Fuel figures satisfying all legal requirements, such as reserve and alternate fuel
• Step climb planning based on actual aircraft weight
• In depth ETOPS calculations, including entry, exit, and equal time points between ETOPS alternates
• Selection of suitable destination and ETOPS alternates based on current weather forecasts
• Real world weather and winds aloft forecasts
• Real world NOTAMs provided by the FAA
• A link to pre-file the generated flight on VATSIM
• A sample simbrief flight plan is here... http://www.simbrief.com/previews/ACA872_CYYZEDDF.pdf

 

[jb747]

Content will be similar, but the layout is totally different.

 

[eric2011]

Any flight plan documents will be of value to people like JB747, Boris etc etc but really mean very little to the other 98% of the public. Its all in airline jargon and abbreviated codes etc

Below is a cut and paste from above link

FLIGHT PLAN ROUTE -----------------
DEP YYZ RWY 33R
CYYZ N0492F350 VERDO3 EPSAT Q921 AGLUK DCT CEFOU DCT 50N060W DCT
DOTTY NATW BEXET DCT MORAG/N0490F370 DCT KONAN UL607 SPI UT180 PESOV
T180 UNOKO DCT EDDF
ARR FRA RWY 07R

Lets be honest, this all means absoulutly nothing to me and I am sure that this would apply to a lot of readers.

Thanks to JB, Boris and the others who are trained for this

 

[jb747]

The the ATC flight plan component. Presumably from a flight sim, as the real ones don't nominate runways, SIDs or STARs. From Toronto to Frankfurt. It shows a departure (SID), then waypoints. DCT means direct, so not an airway. Q921 and UL607 are airways. Initial cruise is at FL350, with a step climb at position MORAG.

 

[sydstar]

jb, you've probably seen the sad story of the AA captain who passed away in flight. In a situation like this with only a 2 person crew, and putting aside the emotional issues for the pilot flying, how difficult would it be to prepare the aircraft to land? I assume that in a normal scenario the non-flying pilot is working with ATC and preparing landing checklists etc.

In a situation with only one pilot who needs to do everything, is the workload incredibly high, or is it a case of use the automation at your disposal to simply get the job done quickly and safely? Is this extra workload something that would be practiced in a sim environment?

I realise in your environment there would be an extra set of hands, perhaps one of the short-haul pilots would care to comment, or even thinking back to your 767 days?

 

[jb747]

jb, you've probably seen the sad story of the AA captain who passed away in flight. In a situation like this with only a 2 person crew, and putting aside the emotional issues for the pilot flying, how difficult would it be to prepare the aircraft to land? I assume that in a normal scenario the non-flying pilot is working with ATC and preparing landing checklists etc.

It wouldn't be all the difficult from the flying point of view. Use the automatics as much as possible, don't get rushed, and stick to the normal procedures. I expect the biggest thing would be worrying about the other pilot...especially if he's still in the other seat.

In a situation with only one pilot who needs to do everything, is the workload incredibly high, or is it a case of use the automation at your disposal to simply get the job done quickly and safely? Is this extra workload something that would be practiced in a sim environment?

It's regularly practised in the simulators, generally with the bloke dropping dead at the most inconvenient time (i.e. during take off or on approach), when the automatics are not engaged, and there's a fair bit happening. During my 'dead' periods I've watched the FOs take control, and then proceed to get it back on the ground as quickly as reasonable. They may have a lot of things to do (dump fuel, perhaps even divert if the weather demands it). Procedurally you let the autopilot fly as much as possible, and then you take both roles (PF and PNF), even down to asking for something, doing it, and then giving the correct response. All to do with keeping it as standard as possible.

I realise in your environment there would be an extra set of hands, perhaps one of the short-haul pilots would care to comment, or even thinking back to your 767 days?

Whilst there is often an SO on board in our operation, about one third of the sectors are flown two man crew....as are all of the sims where we practice this stuff.

Oh, and for those with a pilot's licence who live in hope of someday being asked to help....you won't be. The other seat will be left empty.

 

[Boris spatsky]

We did it fairly recently in the sim. Captain did not reply to one of the mandatory responses during the takeoff roll, FO continued. Weather was fairly marginal but ok for a return.

It's not a major issue. We go landing for landing in shorthaul so both pilots are theoretically as competent as each other in getting the thing on the ground. And every pilot flew as single pilot in a previous job anyway.

The media seem to make out that the FO normally just watches but that is not the case.

 

[RobYg]

Boris or JB, if the bloke in the other seat drops dead what is the call to ATC? Is it a MAYDAY, a PAN or simply telling them what has happened and what you intend to do?

 

[jb747]

Boris or JB, if the bloke in the other seat drops dead what is the call to ATC? Is it a MAYDAY, a PAN or simply telling them what has happened and what you intend to do?

Whatever term you use is up to you. It's realistically a pan, but perhaps it would vary with seniority and whether he's a nice bloke or not. The stock joke for an SO in that position, if asked his intentions, would be a couple of circuits and touch and goes, and then a diversion.

 

[747sp]

My understanding is the airbus wing is more designed for lift while the Boeing wing is more optimized for cruising. If my understanding correct is it the shape of the wing that makes the difference with the flaps used to adjust for the differences at slower speeds.

Do you notice this difference when flying ?

 

[ChrisGibbs]

Whatever term you use is up to you. It's realistically a pan, but perhaps it would vary with seniority and whether he's a nice bloke or not. The stock joke for an SO in that position, if asked his intentions, would be a couple of circuits and touch and goes, and then a diversion.

Assuming the guy in the LHS becomes incapacitated how does the FO taxi a 737 or any other aircraft without a tiller on the RHS?

 

[Boris spatsky]

Assuming the guy in the LHS becomes incapacitated how does the FO taxi a 737 or any other aircraft without a tiller on the RHS?

They don't necessarily. The FO would probably stop the aircraft on the runway, or taxi off on the high speed taxiway and stop (the rudder pedals have some ability to steer on the ground even without a tiller, but it is generally minimal). They would then organise to be towed.

 

[eric2011]

They don't necessarily. The FO would probably stop the aircraft on the runway, or taxi off on the high speed taxiway and stop (the rudder pedals have some ability to steer on the ground even without a tiller, but it is generally minimal). They would then organise to be towed.

At what stage does the steering come into effect ie as soon as the wheels are on the ground or at a certain speed on de-acceleration

 

[jb747]

My understanding is the airbus wing is more designed for lift while the Boeing wing is more optimized for cruising. If my understanding correct is it the shape of the wing that makes the difference with the flaps used to adjust for the differences at slower speeds.

Do you notice this difference when flying ?

The 380 wing has a pretty high aspect ratio, and a lot of area. It isn't carrying as much weight per square foot of wing area as a 747. The most notable difference is that the AB can be flown slower in the clean configuration, and overall has slower approach speeds than the 747. I expect that also means that it is bigger (and so heavier) than it really needs to be, and so might be less efficient than it would be in an ideal world (i.e. one in which it wasn't planned for use on a non existent heavier version).

 

[jb747]

At what stage does the steering come into effect ie as soon as the wheels are on the ground or at a certain speed on de-acceleration

The steering is interconnected with the rudder, so that full rudder deflection gives about 7º of nose wheel motion. That compares with up to 70º when using the tiller. It is in use all the time, but the rudder will overpower it above about 70 knots.

You only use the tiller at taxi speed (below about 30 knots).

 

[WheelieBagWanderer]

Hi JB,

As others have said, thank you for all the time and effort you put in here. It's very much appreciated.


Apologies if this has been mentioned before on the thread - obviously hard to go through 854 pages (what a book that would make just thinking about it!)

I was browsing the net and came across this incident a while ago with a Cathay Pacific A330:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathay_Pacific_Flight_780

Landing at 426km/h does not sound like a pleasant experience, but you gotta do what you gotta do.

I'm not sure why I hadn't heard about this as I usually keep my eye on aviation stuff. Maybe I was overseas and travelling remotely so I missed it. Anyhow, apparently the skill in landing this aircraft was likened to Chelsey landing on The Hudson a few years back or the QF A380 in SIN.

Just wondering... compared to the Qantas A380 incident landing in SIN, and the Hudson River incident, how would this scenario compare in terms of "difficulty" in getting the aircraft down in one piece? Is this exact scenario "trained for" or was it "one out of the box?"

Also, it's a bit scary to think there could be contaminated fuel out there. If this was the cause in this scenario, why weren't other aircraft affected the same way on the same day? Surely if it affected the CX flight it would have affected more?

On a different topic, I do have another question: Flying back from China to Australia (day flight) on one of the mainland Chinese carriers a few weeks back, I was sitting up the front of biz and happened to be in the galley grabbing a drink, and I noticed that when one of the flight crew came out to use the lavatory, they had taped newspaper across all the flight deck windows to keep the sun out. I mean... all of them! It was decidedly dark up there! I know it's all automated and instrument flying, but surely they would have to leave SOME window space uncovered to maintain a visual presence? Is this normal to do this? It struck me as decidedly odd!

Thanks in advance if you get around to answering these queries. Safe travels!

 

[jb747]

I was browsing the net and came across this incident a while ago with a Cathay Pacific A330:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathay_Pacific_Flight_780

Landing at 426km/h does not sound like a pleasant experience, but you gotta do what you gotta do.

I'm not sure why I hadn't heard about this as I usually keep my eye on aviation stuff. Maybe I was overseas and travelling remotely so I missed it. Anyhow, apparently the skill in landing this aircraft was likened to Chelsey landing on The Hudson a few years back or the QF A380 in SIN.

This was an extremely interesting event. I'd looked a couple of times for the final report, and hadn't found it, but did so this time. Worth the read....http://www.cad.gov.hk/reports/2 Final Report - CX 780 2013 07 web access compliant.pdf

Just wondering... compared to the Qantas A380 incident landing in SIN, and the Hudson River incident, how would this scenario compare in terms of "difficulty" in getting the aircraft down in one piece?

Well, I'm a bit of a heretic here...but neither of the landings you mention are 'up there' on my list. The Americans love a hero, and Sully did a good job, but landing on a river in VMC isn't miraculous in any way. What he did, that nobody picks up on, was to decide to take the river instead of trying to get the Teterborough (airfield). His decision was quick, and correct, and everything followed on from that. QF32 was an engine failure in a four engined aircraft. Procedurally, it was long and complex, but there was nothing outlandish in the flying. This (CX) was a very dynamic event, well outside anything trained for. The crew had to make it up as they went along. The Monday morning quarterbacks can suggest that he could have shut down the "good" engine once the landing was assured, to get rid of some of the energy, but they do so from the comfort of their chairs, and the knowledge of exactly what was happening...luxuries the crew did not have.

In my book, this event was extremely well flown, and jumps well over QF32, USAir, and QF30 for that matter.

Is this exact scenario "trained for" or was it "one out of the box?"

This sort of event is not trained for at all. You cannot practice every event. The USN gave up training for A4 forced landings because a) the chances of being in a position from which you could actually do one were virtually zero, and b) they lost more aircraft practicing for it than they ever saved. Whilst not the same thing, I'm sure you get the idea. These boys made it up as they went along.

Also, it's a bit scary to think there could be contaminated fuel out there. If this was the cause in this scenario, why weren't other aircraft affected the same way on the same day? Surely if it affected the CX flight it would have affected more?

The report covers that to a degree, but the answer is that it could have.

On a different topic, I do have another question: Flying back from China to Australia (day flight) on one of the mainland Chinese carriers a few weeks back, I was sitting up the front of biz and happened to be in the galley grabbing a drink, and I noticed that when one of the flight crew came out to use the lavatory, they had taped newspaper across all the flight deck windows to keep the sun out. I mean... all of them! It was decidedly dark up there! I know it's all automated and instrument flying, but surely they would have to leave SOME window space uncovered to maintain a visual presence? Is this normal to do this? It struck me as decidedly odd!

I'm sure it's not all that unusual. You don't look out for other aircraft. You cannot even pick whether they are above, below, or at the same height until they are upon you. Whilst I don't do it (block out my coughpit), I can understand why. The sun, coming straight in, is blinding.