Ask The Pilot

  • Thread starter Thread starter NM
  • Start date Start date
  • Featured
There were some delays in SYD yesterday, while runway 34R was being used almost exclusively for take-offs and landings. There must have been at least a dozen aircraft queued by the third runway waiting to take-off for some time and ATC appeared to be restricting the number of aircraft that were allowed to take off.

There was a comment that the delays were being caused by a "movement cap". What does that mean exactly?
 
There were some delays in SYD yesterday, while runway 34R was being used almost exclusively for take-offs and landings. There must have been at least a dozen aircraft queued by the third runway waiting to take-off for some time and ATC appeared to be restricting the number of aircraft that were allowed to take off.

There was a comment that the delays were being caused by a "movement cap". What does that mean exactly?

Ah, the efficiency of Sydney airport. It would probably work quite well if the controllers were just allowed to get on with the job, but there are various government mandated issues that make it much less efficient, and sometimes even dangerous. In this case "movements at Sydney Airport are capped at 80 an hour, but based on rolling 15-minute periods of 20 movements".
 
I saw something somewhere that explained that MH were avoiding Iranian airspace for security reasons instead flying over Egypt to their European ports. The wind and the length of their routing led to the weight limitations. I believe (could well be wrong here) that this routing has since been adjusted to reflect MH's changed security assessment of the area. As I understand it QF and others currently fly over Iranian airspace. Perhaps, understandably, MH is a bit more jittery about some locales!
There was an article in the SMH that gave some answers as to why they chosen to not carry baggage. Looks like they had considered other options.....Malaysia Airlines resumes flight path over Iran after holding back baggage
 
On approach into MEL on Friday (VA B737) the guys up front were constantly applying and reducing thrust. I've not normally seen this. The approaches normally are fairly smooth and constant. There was also a bit of turbulence too as we descended (we tracked in from SYD over what appeared to be Eildon and other areas north of Melbourne). Would that have affected the aircraft's speed?

For much of the duration of a flight, we aren't all that concerned about slight speed deviations. But, the closer you get to the ground, the more important it becomes to be exactly on speed. The aircraft has to be flown down a very narrow line, which will give us the correct track to the centre of the runway, and a constant 3º descent angle. Sadly, the conditions (wind, thermals) conspire to push us off our desired line as well as giving too much, and too little, airspeed.

If you are too fast, you'll need a lower pitch attitude, and higher sink rate to stay in the slot. You'll also tend to fly high out of the slot, which then has a nasty habit of leading to late corrections, and landings without sufficient power and falling through the flare into a solid (and likely shortish) landing. Slow will often lead to low, and the correction for that tends to make you float. It's very dynamic.

So, the best answer is to keep on top of the corrections. Don't let the speed deviate. Hang on to the slot. The aim is to get to the end of the approach with the aircraft in the right spot, power at the right level, speed on target...and that will lead you into a normal flare. If the conditions are gusty, you can end up 'throttle bashing' with constant changes of power. All changes in an aircraft are multi stage. If you find yourself going slow, you need to increase the power enough to get you back to the target. When you get there the power will then have to be reduced to hold the speed. Each power change will also give you a pitch couple, so that will have to be corrected simultaneously.
 
Ah, the efficiency of Sydney airport. It would probably work quite well if the controllers were just allowed to get on with the job, but there are various government mandated issues that make it much less efficient, and sometimes even dangerous. In this case "movements at Sydney Airport are capped at 80 an hour, but based on rolling 15-minute periods of 20 movements".

Thanks. Are movement caps in force all of the time, or only during select periods?
 
Did our pilot contributors read the article by Byron Bailey in 'The Weekend Australian' of 9-10 January 2016 regarding his (not new) hypothesis of what occurred with MH370?

What did you think given the significantly longer period that has now elapsed since the incident?

(I have asked this also in the AFF thread 'MH media statement' but was not sure who would see it there.) I have not provided a link due to the paywall.
 
Did our pilot contributors read the article by Byron Bailey in 'The Weekend Australian' of 9-10 January 2016 regarding his (not new) hypothesis of what occurred with MH370?

What did you think given the significantly longer period that has now elapsed since the incident?

(I have asked this also in the AFF thread 'MH media statement' but was not sure who would see it there.) I have not provided a link due to the paywall.

Whilst I don't normally agree with much of what Ben Sandilands says, this time I do..... Good story about MH370 gets a bit hysterical | Plane Talking
 
If the conditions are gusty, you can end up 'throttle bashing' with constant changes of power. All changes in an aircraft are multi stage. If you find yourself going slow, you need to increase the power enough to get you back to the target. When you get there the power will then have to be reduced to hold the speed. Each power change will also give you a pitch couple, so that will have to be corrected simultaneously.

I don't know if it was gusty or thermals, particularly as we overflew Lake Eildon, but the power corrections, if that's a suitable term, were many during the last 5 minutes or so. And it was quite bumpy, but nothing like what you'd experience in say, a Jabiru ultralight (my most recent ride in a non-pax A/C).

What was really bumpy was our approach into JFK on a B744. We overflew much of Long Island, having come across from England and down via Newfoundland. I was quite surprised that such a large aircraft could move around so much.

Then there's our trips into DXB on the A380. That was really smooth, as I expected the desert to throw up a few thermals to keep the lads busy.
 
I don't know if it was gusty or thermals, particularly as we overflew Lake Eildon, but the power corrections, if that's a suitable term, were many during the last 5 minutes or so. And it was quite bumpy, but nothing like what you'd experience in say, a Jabiru ultralight (my most recent ride in a non-pax A/C).

I actually took your comment as being related to even later in the flight, from about 3,000 ft down. Prior to that, power changes are related to either gross speed changes from ATC, or to maintenance of the path. Sometimes the descent comes in small increments, in which case we're constantly levelling off, with attendant power changes.

What was really bumpy was our approach into JFK on a B744. We overflew much of Long Island, having come across from England and down via Newfoundland. I was quite surprised that such a large aircraft could move around so much.

Big aircraft, but the behaviour is more related to the weight per square foot of wing area (wing loading), than it is to absolute weight. The 380 can be even worse than the 747, because its wing loading is lower.

Then there's our trips into DXB on the A380. That was really smooth, as I expected the desert to throw up a few thermals to keep the lads busy.

Deserts are dry...not always hot. It thermals nicely when it wants to...
 
Just had a couple of questions about the 5th pod answered by a bloke who used to prepare the engines for carriage.

The fan blades are all removed, and the core is blanked to inhibit the airflow, and reduce drag. No rotation, so no need for lubrication system. It was only available for JT9 and RB211 engines, so I was probably wrong about carrying a CF6. TBC.

A little more info....CF6 engines are either shipped as whole units on freighters, or broken down into modules, and reassembled at the destination.
 
Last edited:
When a plane transfers its weight from the wheels to the wings is this when you , as the pilot, consider the plane to be flying or is another point
 
When a plane transfers its weight from the wheels to the wings is this when you , as the pilot, consider the plane to be flying or is another point

Many aircraft have slightly negative angles of attack when on the ground, so there's no substantial weight transfer until rotation (when we pick the nose gear up). The aerodynamic surfaces all start working gradually during the take off roll. The fin/rudder can overpower the nose gear steering from about 60 knots. I don't consider it to be flying if the wheels are on the ground, but the control surfaces all work throughout the take off and landing. It doesn't become a car (and a bad one at that), until taxi speeds (around 30 knots).
 
How would engines be transported after the 747s are retired? Or have the bean counters not thought about it?

The twins have never been able to carry a spare engine. Too big, not enough space. Most aircraft now are twins. There are only a few RR 747s left in the QF fleet. Basically they can carry a spare of their own type of engine. Very much a case of decreasing need.

It isn't engineered into new aircraft. 380 can't do it.

Modern engines are extremely reliable. The incidence of engine changes has reduced dramatically over the years. Most shutdowns are caused by external systems (fuel, oil, etc), not the engine itself....so mostly they can be fixed in situ. And before anyone mentions the more extreme failures (like QF32), they tend to break the aircraft as well, so there's not really a rush for an engine replacement.

Engines can be 'borrowed' from various sources. BA 747s have departed Sydney with QF engines, and vice versa. Normally for very limited time periods (and then they have to be shipped back), but it takes the hurry out of things. RR will supply an engine in some cases (and I presume the same for GE).

Basically though, the engines are just too big to stick another on to an aircraft, so either breaking them down to modules, or shipping intact on a freighter is the only viable option. It's not really a case of counting beans, but engineering and logistics.
 
I've just watched a few videos on youtube where the pilot has declared a mayday. After the initial 'mayday, mayday, mayday' call where they gave the initial sitrep, they prefixed their flight number with the word 'mayday'. In this instance the call sign for the flight appeared to change from 'Thompson xx_' to 'mayday Thompson xx_'. Is this standard procedure? I assume that if not standard procedure it was done in this instance to let everyone on frequency that they were the mayday flight.
 
I've just watched a few videos on youtube where the pilot has declared a mayday. After the initial 'mayday, mayday, mayday' call where they gave the initial sitrep, they prefixed their flight number with the word 'mayday'. In this instance the call sign for the flight appeared to change from 'Thompson xx_' to 'mayday Thompson xx_'. Is this standard procedure? I assume that if not standard procedure it was done in this instance to let everyone on frequency that they were the mayday flight.

Procedures will differ a bit around the world...so, whilst not standard to change your callsign unless ATC ask you to, the rules also state that it's permissible to add the comment (mayday/pan) on subsequent calls. Basically it's up the the pilot concerned (and his company procedures). It's evident throughout the video that the controller is offering help whilst trying not to distract...it all sounds pretty well managed.

The video in question is here: https://youtu.be/RPkZBR89y_M

Also worth noting that whilst I'm sure the newspapers would have reported it as being on fire....it wasn't. That's what a compressor stall looks like. A running jet engine is always on fire.
 
Love watching those types of videos - shows that one of the things we punters dread (engine problem on take-off) while no doubt serious, can be handled with the aircraft seeming to barely deviate from a 'normal' take-off attitude.

Could pilots talk us through what the coughpit would have been doing in the first 30-60 seconds after the bird strike? When the engine stopped 'backfiring' (30 seconds in), would that be the point when the engine was fully shut down?

Also, the 'mayday' call - in my profound ignorance, that seems rather acute for the 'engine failure' they called, with the plane apparently under control and landing gear going up; would that be the expected call say by an Australian pilot at an Australian airport (I note the comment above that procedures differ around the world)?
 
EXCLUSIVE OFFER - Offer expires: 20 Jan 2025

- Earn up to 200,000 bonus Velocity Points*
- Enjoy unlimited complimentary access to Priority Pass lounges worldwide
- Earn up to 3 Citi reward Points per dollar uncapped

*Terms And Conditions Apply

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top