Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

I've just seen on the Sydney Atis the note "ELT operating vicinity of AD". After a bit of googling I think ELT means Emergency Locator Transmitter. Am I correct in this why would it be on and what effect, if any, does it have on other aircraft operating?

For about 99% of the time, the #2 VHF radio is tuned to 121.5. This is one of the 'guard' emergency frequencies. ELTs use this as one of their multiple frequencies. So, if an ELT has been set off, accidentally or otherwise, most of us hear it. And the next thing we do is tell ATC...who may be over the radio horizon, and not be able to directly hear it.

The ATIS is telling the inbound aircraft that ATC already know, and please don't tell us again.

 

[Quickstatus]

H Jb747,

Were you on the 94 departing 19/1 or 20/1?.

If you were and able to what was the shortfall in required fuel? And the reason for divert and when was the decision pount?


12 months ago I was on the 94 which turned into a pseudo 12 resulting in my luggage stsying onboard while I deplaned in Syd and luggage was delivered to me at home in SYD. I thought this to be a nice unpublished service provided by the company.

I was hoping for the same service but missed out by a day as I was on the 94 departing 18/1.

 

[jb747]

H Jb747,

Were you on the 94 departing 19/1 or 20/1?.

If you were and able to what was the shortfall in required fuel? And the reason for divert and when was the decision pount?


12 months ago I was on the 94 which turned into a pseudo 12 resulting in my luggage stsying onboard while I deplaned in Syd and luggage was delivered to me at home in SYD. I thought this to be a nice unpublished service provided by the company.

I was hoping for the same service but missed out by a day as I was on the 94 departing 18/1.

I was supposed to be operating the one that arrived on the 22nd, but was displaced.

On the Thursday Melbourne had fog, and the Friday thunderstorms. In both cases an alternate would be required, but in neither case was the adverse weather forecast until well after the aircraft had departed LA, and so it would never have come into the planning.

A full alternate from Melbourne to Sydney is about 22,000 kgs. The normal arrival fuel is somewhere between 12,000 and 17,000 kgs.

The decision point....well that varies a bit. You can always go beyond Sydney, to approximately abeam Albury, at which point the fuel required will be about the same in both directions. If you think that there's a chance that the weather requirements will disappear, then it may be worth going as far as you can. At the other end of the scale, if the weather has settled in, and doesn't look like improving any time soon, then an early decision to divert (well before you hit the coast) may take less time overall.

When the weather was really bad in Sydney a few weeks back, we were considering a diversion to Brisbane, but thankfully Melbourne improved before the decision had to be made.

 

[jb747]

Roster....

93 31 Jan, 94 1 Feb

93 6 Feb, 94 7 Feb

93 13 Feb, 94 14 Feb

93 10 Mar, 94 11 Mar

9 16 Mar (MEL-DXB), 9 19 Mar (DXB-LHR), 2 21 Mar (LHR-DXB), 10 24 Mar (DXB-MEL)

Then leave for a few weeks.

 

[defurax]

Roster....

93 31 Jan, 94 1 Feb

93 6 Feb, 94 7 Feb

93 13 Feb, 94 14 Feb

93 10 Mar, 94 11 Mar

9 16 Mar (MEL-DXB), 9 19 Mar (DXB-LHR), 2 21 Mar (LHR-DXB), 10 24 Mar (DXB-MEL)

Then leave for a few weeks.

So you have 23 days without flying from 16 Feb to 10 Mar, is this because you would hit maximal hours in a given time period? Or just the semi-"randomness" of rostering?

 

[jb747]

So you have 23 days without flying from 16 Feb to 10 Mar, is this because you would hit maximal hours in a given time period? Or just the semi-"randomness" of rostering?

When I was looking at my bid for this roster, I had a play with the trips, and found it quite constrained.

Most 93/93s and 9/10s are crewed by Sydney based Captains. So, only certain days are available to be flown by Melbourne crews. The system cannot breach any of the CASA hours limitations (and the company normally uses a small margin to allow for diversions, slow flights, etc). The total work of the patterns must add up to the 'divisor' (basically the average work for each rank/base) plus or minus 3 hours. Leave cannot be infringed at all. In this instance, it's achieved divisor minus 2 hours, so it's happy that it has generated sufficient work. The final LA could be slid forward by up to a week, but there's no particular reason for the program to have done so...remember it also has to generate rosters for about 80 others, and a change to one ripples through them all.

The group of 3 LA trips close together (two of which are from the previous roster), add up to about 95 hours of flying, in a period of 17 days. The legal limit is a rolling 100 in 30 days. That means that for 13 days after the last of that group, I could fly to Sydney and back, and that would be about it. There aren't any such trips planned, so none can be rostered (though one could be assigned if it happened to appear).

The London that slots in at the end was the only particular item the I requested. I really wanted two, but there was no way to make the hours work.

Long breaks are invariably targeted for sims and any other training. In this instance they've already placed a training day right in the middle...which I'm trying to move to one of the short breaks.

 

[mjt57]

In general...much, much, worse. I lifted my helmet in an A4 once, to hear how bad...it went straight back down.

Speaking (or rather, writing) about A4s, have you seen this?

https://www.facebook.com/428109517209269/videos/1055397177813830/?fref=nf

 

[Simo]

Why does Boeing have all there aircraft starting with 7 and Airbus start with 3????

 

[por930]

This site seems to provide some plausible answers....
aviation history - Why does Boeing name its aircraft B7x7 and Airbus names theirs A3x0? - Aviation Stack Exchange

Though every aviation like PPrune etc sites have their versions....

 

[Boris spatsky]

Are military aircraft better or worse in terms of coughpit noise, and/or is the hearing protection used relative to the noise?

Military transport aircraft have historically gone for less noise insulation to reduce weight (therefore allowing them theoretically to carry more cargo). The Herc was particularly noisy, to the extent that down the back as a pax, you couldn't have a conversation at even yelling volume due to the engine noise.

The APU was also right next to the front door on the left side. At most stops we would be on APU power, so it was a very noisy environment to say the least, even whilst wearing earplugs.

 

[anat0l]

Let's talk radio communications.

1. Has there been a time before where the radio communications have been very unclear, viz. garbled, poor reception, or basically impossible to relay any or all of the message...

2. What is the standard protocol in radio communications if (a) you have received a 'message' which you don't understand / isn't clear, or (b) you have received a message from a communicator telling you that they did not successfully receive your last message? Is there a 'retry limit', e.g. if a message can't be successfully conveyed in 2 attempts, what is the protocol from here?

3. What are the main factors which normally impede clear radio communication between vessels in the air, and between the air and the ground?

4. Is there a simulated scenario / trained scenario / trained contingency in an event where the radio communications systems of the plane you are piloting become completely inoperable? I'm guessing this is highly unlikely, but...

 

[jb747]

Speaking (or rather, writing) about A4s, have you seen this?

https://www.facebook.com/428109517209269/videos/1055397177813830/?fref=nf

Yes...nice aircraft. It's actually quite a bit lower powered than the TA4Gs, which had the same engine as the singles. The Collings Foundation aircraft is closer to the Gs.

The video gives a pretty good idea of what it was like to manoeuvre. Violent little aircraft.

 

[jb747]

Let's talk radio communications.

1. Has there been a time before where the radio communications have been very unclear, viz. garbled, poor reception, or basically impossible to relay any or all of the message...

Ah, HF....it's just about always like that.

2. What is the standard protocol in radio communications if (a) you have received a 'message' which you don't understand / isn't clear, or (b) you have received a message from a communicator telling you that they did not successfully receive your last message? Is there a 'retry limit', e.g. if a message can't be successfully conveyed in 2 attempts, what is the protocol from here?

If it isn't clear then generally you just give it a rest for a while and try again. It's one of the reasons that radio calls should follow standard phraseology.

3. What are the main factors which normally impede clear radio communication between vessels in the air, and between the air and the ground?

VHF is normally quite clear. Only HF suffers and its relevance is pretty limited these days.

4. Is there a simulated scenario / trained scenario / trained contingency in an event where the radio communications systems of the plane you are piloting become completely inoperable? I'm guessing this is highly unlikely, but...

To lose 3 VHF, 2 HF, data link, and 2 sat phones falls into the very unlikely bucket, and would probably indicate major other electrical issues, for which comms might be a minor issue. In any event, you just continue exactly as flight planned to destination, with the appropriate transponder code. Basically remain as predictable as possible.

 

[747sp]

The other day when flying back to sydney the weather around Newcastle was terrible. We flew about 100 miles offshore to avoid the storm and then flew west to airport. A number of flights diverted at the time and flew the same way. Are the pilots just given the information and expected to deside the best route? The flight was about 20 min longer than normal. For a 737 would they have had to have haved added extra fuel before we took off

 

[jb747]

The other day when flying back to sydney the weather around Newcastle was terrible. We flew about 100 miles offshore to avoid the storm and then flew west to airport. A number of flights diverted at the time and flew the same way. Are the pilots just given the information and expected to deside the best route? The flight was about 20 min longer than normal. For a 737 would they have had to have haved added extra fuel before we took off

Every time you look at a fuel order, you are being asked to make a prediction of the future. It would appear that in this case they had the right idea.

 

[Cynicor]

Ah, HF....it's just about always like that.



If it isn't clear then generally you just give it a rest for a while and try again. It's one of the reasons that radio calls should follow standard phraseology.



VHF is normally quite clear. Only HF suffers and its relevance is pretty limited these days.



To lose 3 VHF, 2 HF, data link, and 2 sat phones falls into the very unlikely bucket, and would probably indicate major other electrical issues, for which comms might be a minor issue. In any event, you just continue exactly as flight planned to destination, with the appropriate transponder code. Basically remain as predictable as possible.

With this final scenario in mind, assuming you couldn't communicate with ATC either, how would you land? Just fly in?

 

[andmiz]

With this final scenario in mind, assuming you couldn't communicate with ATC either, how would you land? Just fly in?

Given the loss of 7 voice communication systems, plus CPDLC, yes, basically just follow the flight plan and fly it in. There's a few procedures to follow which may indicate to ATC of a comms loss, such as following an assigned altitude, holding, or an assigned track for a given number of minutes, and then to follow the flight plan. Lets not forget all the hundredss of mobile phones on board available to contact ATC (some countries publish phone numbers), it's such a remote situation it's not worth giving too much consideration to; temporary loss of communications yes, but not a complete loss.

 

[Cynicor]

Forgot about phones; mine is always turned fully off

 

[RooFlyer]

Here's an idle thought. I wonder that in the not too distant future, people on the ground would be able to take full control of a FBW aircraft (ie locking the coughpit out of control completely) in certain very extreme circumstances - for instance non responsive coughpit with plane deviating from flight path, or coughpit invasion and loss of control of circumstances by pilots . I'm thinking the autopilot would be 'programmed' to land the plane at earliest opportunity or at least have it taken out of harm's way (either from the aircraft's or ground's point of view). I'm not suggesting that successful intervention would always be possible but I wonder if it may be possible technically if there was a datalink between the plane and the ground?

Hope this isn't straying into security area.

 

[Awesom Andy]

In the GA world where they probably don't have 7+ communication systems on board, there are also published and specific procedures to follow. It is covered in the first few hours of a student pilot's training.