Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

That raises a question that may have been asked (and answered) before - If an engine has been shut down mid flight can it be restarted?

An inflight restart is no big deal. It's even tested on delivery flights, with each engine being shut down, and then restarted, in turn. The modern jets will actually attempt automatic restarts themselves, so (in the A380) some ECAM procedures will start off with a message and timer relating to automatic relights. Some events could lead you to shutting down 'healthy' engines, sometimes with the idea of relighting them again later, and at other times as part of a diagnostic process...though obviously this is more a quad than twin thing.

An engine may not relight at high levels, but should do so from about FL300. There are two types of relight. If we are going fast enough, there should be enough air flow through the engine for it to be turning quite rapidly already, and in that case all that really needs to happen is for fuel and ignition to be provided. At lower speeds it may be necessary to use the APU to provide starter assistance, in which case the start is basically the same as happens on the ground.

That does lead to the question of whether we would or should attempt a restart. When an engine fails, we look try to see if it is damaged. Something that has led us to shut it down, such as a fire warning, obviously leaves us with an engine that we would not restart. But, if it has just died, we look to see if it is turning, and what the vibration levels are like. If it is still turning and the levels are low, then it probably isn't physically damaged, and we won't be led by the checklist into setting off a fire bottle. So, why has it failed? If it's something that might be transient (like the heaviest rain ever seen), then you might consider a restart. But, if it's just gone out...and you still have fuel, you're left with an interesting decision. As a general rule, engines don't snuff themselves, so I'm personally unlikely to attempt a restart.

 

[civi_joe]

What are your thoughts on this "terrifying" "potential disaster" JB?

Melbourne airport: Near miss involving Qantas planes sparks safety review calls

 

[Himeno]

What are your thoughts on this "terrifying" "potential disaster" JB?

Melbourne airport: Near miss involving Qantas planes sparks safety review calls

In the video on that story, Nick Xenophon says the solution is to build a parallel runway at MEL. What are the chances of that even happening?

 

[Ansett]

In the video on that story, Nick Xenophon says the solution is to build a parallel runway at MEL. What are the chances of that even happening?

It is part of the master plan released in 2013 see below

http://melbourneairport.com.au/docs/140206_master-plan_chapter-5.pdf

 

[Awesom Andy]

In the video on that story, Nick Xenophon says the solution is to build a parallel runway at MEL. What are the chances of that even happening?

For once, I hope he has his way.

 

[serfty]

It is part of the master plan released in 2013 see below

http://melbourneairport.com.au/docs/140206_master-plan_chapter-5.pdf

The early plans for MEL included 4 runways, although I believe some of the land originally allocated has been taken over by commercial facilities/buildings.

http://www.australianfrequentflyer....ews/mel-start-third-runway-project-45128.html

 

[jb747]

I'll believe in them building a third runway when I actually see it....and even then I'll bet it's too short, and pointed the wrong way, to be a great deal of use. The master plan may mention extra runways, but then so did my Melways a million years ago.

As for this event...I haven't read the ATSB report, but only the rather hysterical one written by Ben Sandilands. The 777 would seem basically irrelevant to the event. If the 737s were spaced with some form of stagger, as they normally are, then a collision is unlikely. Nevertheless, infringing the separation standard is quite possible.

I don't understand the comments about minimum heights to overfly the terminal...never heard of them. What does exist is a minimum height for a radar heading, but even then the heading can be accepted with the aircraft providing the terrain clearance.

Parallel runways won't magically make this sort of issue go away, as you'll very likely end up with operations like San Francisco, where simultaneous operations happen off the crossing parallels (i.e. four crossing runways, not just two).

At the end of the day though, simultaneous landings to crossing runways is a dumb mode, and always has been. Not using this mode would most likely reduce Melbourne's capacity dramatically. The airport, like all in Australia, is poor, and little, if anything, is being done to fix it.

 

[defurax]

The master plan may mention extra runways, but then so did my Melways a million years ago.

This reminds me of Mirabel (YMX) in Canada which was supposed to become the biggest airport in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montréal–Mirabel_International_Airport#Architecture_and_layout

Now it's an almost abandoned airport with a few cargo flights...although I still hope MEL will eventually get another runway!

Were airports like LAX, CDG and LHR designed with only parallel runways because the crosswind is never strong at these locations?

 

[Himeno]

This reminds me of Mirabel (YMX) in Canada which was supposed to become the biggest airport in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montréal–Mirabel_International_Airport#Architecture_and_layout

Now it's an almost abandoned airport with a few cargo flights...although I still hope MEL will eventually get another runway!

Were airports like LAX, CDG and LHR designed with only parallel runways because the crosswind is never strong at these locations?

What about the 7 runway layout at DFW, 9 at ORD or 6 at AMS?
LHR originally had 6 runways. The current pair and 4 crossing in a hexagram arrangement. They started closing them in the 70s to expand the terminals. You can see parts of the old runways in the taxiways.

 

[jb747]

What about the 7 runway layout at DFW, 9 at ORD or 6 at AMS?
LHR originally had 6 runways. The current pair and 4 crossing in a hexagram arrangement. They started closing them in the 70s to expand the terminals. You can see parts of the old runways in the taxiways.

And, when the wind is from the south, it sometimes exceeds the crosswind limits for the aircraft. I've had to go elsewhere because of it.....

 

[Melburnian1]

The new runway proposed for MEL was previously discussed many pages ago after I asked for tech crews' opinions on it. If I recall, without searching the page, one of our kind contributors expressed a reservation about the direction it was proposed to run and implied that this would not solve the congestion problems experienced during challenging climatic conditions or busier times and (reading between the lines) that (in layman's terms) it was going to face the wrong way.

This article from another website mentions the possible introduction of 'video (image) recorders in coughpits.' In many workplaces such as offices, having a camera close to an employee might be considered extremely intrusive. Do our airline staff have a neutral position on this or a view one way or the other?

Major Airline News - AirlineRatings.com

 

[andmiz]

This article from another website mentions the possible introduction of 'video (image) recorders in coughpits.' In many workplaces such as offices, having a camera close to an employee might be considered extremely intrusive. Do our airline staff have a neutral position on this or a view one way or the other?

Major Airline News - AirlineRatings.com

I'd argue that pilots as a group have a negative view on video recorders in the coughpit, and there is reason to argue that they wouldn't bring a required increase in safety. Airline pilot unions throughout the world fought very strongly to protect data recorded in the coughpit; and it got to the point in some parts of the world where crews would purposely disable the voice recorders due to privacy breaches by their airlines. In Australia where this was probably the hardest fought by the unions, the data is protected under Commonwealth law...the ATSB is under strict rules on who it can be released to...even in coronial inquests State/Federal Police can't get legally get access to it.

The international association of pilot unions - IFALPA still opposes the idea.

 

[jb747]

Major Airline News - AirlineRatings.com

The article actually mentions a number of points..

Require medical fitness for duty

I thought that this was already the case. Medicals, cardiograms, stress tests, all sort of doctor stuff...and it happens every 6 months (if you are an old fart).

An issue that does exist is that some airlines don't actually offer sick pay, and pay nothing if you have a cold and can't fly. So, they are already providing incentive to come to work when you shouldn't. As to which airlines, I'm sure you can work it out.

End substance abuse in transportation

Random drug testing already exists. If you want to make it a case of blow in a bag before each flight, I have no issues with that, as long as the clock starts before the testing.

As for drug use...I'd suggest that the use of illegal drugs is minimal. The biggest issue, if it even is one, would be the accidental use of something that is banned. We aren't chemists, and having one headache pill allowed, whilst another isn't, doesn't help. As this actually affects car/truck drivers too, perhaps we could simply change the packaging, to something like cigarettes (and not the whimpy little labels that exist).

Note that the article is selective. I mentions fatal accidents only, without specifying at what level of flying they are talking about. My guess is that most, perhaps even all, of the 23% are flying light aircraft.

NTSB recommends the use of coughpit image recorders—not merely voice and flight data reorders.

Note that it says recorders. I can't think of any accident that remained unsolved without cameras, as long as they had the FDR. Now, to be actually useful, you'd need cameras that are recording all of the panels (and at a readable resolution). They'd need to show the pilots hands at a times, as well as their eyes...so you're looking at 6-8 cameras per coughpit. Intrusive beyond belief, and I very much doubt that it would improve safety at all. Some of the big coughpit issues are already well known, and nothing is being done...this would just be a silly feel good without addressing any real problems.

Strengthen occupant protection

Admirable, but a somewhat loose comment. How far? The law of decreasing returns comes into play here. Look at the SFO 777...it hung together through some incredible motions, which could well have torn lesser designs apart.

NTSB says, “While 99 percent of passengers survived…two of the three fatally injured passengers were ejected from the airplane because they were unrestrained.”

That's what can happen if you don't do up your seat belt.

Reduce fatigue-related accidents

This is the big one, and pretty much nothing is being done about it. It affects the airline and cargo worlds, and has been the root cause of many accidents. Historically a very large proportion of accidents that have been written off to "pilot error" have actually been fatigue related, but it's much easier to blame a dead pilot than the system he worked for.

 

[Melburnian1]

Thank you jb747 for a great summary of the main points of that article - you imply that a coughpit image 'recorder' merely takes photos (i.e. at a point in time) rather than continuously records as a 'video' might. Perhaps this was poor choice of words by the NTSB? I'm pleased that you see this as 'intrusive' as that would be the reaction of many in the workforce even in fields varying widely from yours, although they are necessary in many shops.

One other thing - airport and airspace congestion can vary by time of day or night as might perceptions of same if a tech crew member continually flies into say, LAX when it is super busy as opposed to a schedule when it is not quite as busy.

Of all the airfields that our tech crew contributors see either regularly when working or less often when travelling, which one do you perceive has had the greatest rise in congestion (for aircraft, not necessarily for passengers, although the two may correlate to a degree unless aircraft sizes have varied markedly) in the last decade or 20 years? Or are they all much of a muchness?

 

[blu]

Towards the end of our decent into Haneda on Monday, MrsB though we passed "too close" to an aircraft climbing on takeoff.
Is there a Horizontal Separation required to avoid wake vortex (or has she been watching too many airline reality shows)?

 

[flychrisfly]

Hi Pilots,
are there any facts or pieces of information you wish the flying public knew (better)? As in, is there anything annoying or naive that you are asked or hear that you kinda wish wasn't?

 

[Boris spatsky]

Hi Pilots,
are there any facts or pieces of information you wish the flying public knew (better)? As in, is there anything annoying or naive that you are asked or hear that you kinda wish wasn't?

2 points from me.

1)We can't see clear air turbulence, nor can the radar. Hence it is impossible to avoid it 100% of the time. We will do our best to pick the smoothest route/level based on met forecasts, and use advice from ATC and aircraft ahead, but don't complain when we warned you to have your seatbelt fastened when seated just in case, and you don't.

2) i know that the majority of travellers judge the flight solely on the smoothness of the landing. A smooth landing is not something we necessarily strive for, e.g. In wet weather or crosswind. A firm landing in the touchdown zone on centreline at the correct speed is far more important than getting a smooth landing for the passengers. My wife now praises the pilot when she notices a solid touchdown in the rain; i have taught her well ðŸ

 

[Boris spatsky]

Towards the end of our decent into Haneda on Monday, MrsB though we passed "too close" to an aircraft climbing on takeoff.
Is there a Horizontal Separation required to avoid wake vortex (or has she been watching too many airline reality shows)?

There are two issues here. 1) not having a separation breakdown with the other aircraft (due risk of collision) and 2) not getting in the other aircraft's wake.

It is impossible to tell from the cabin how far away another aircraft is, or even whether it is within 1000 vertically of you. If it looks close, it will normally be at least 1000 ft vertically separated, or 5 nautical miles laterally, depending on the airspace.

Hitting someone else's wake is not uncommon. ATC separate aircraft on takeoff and landing on the same runway by time or distance to avoid it.

 

[clazman]

Curious on do we have more turbulence now compared to ten years ago?

 

[andmiz]

Curious on do we have more turbulence now compared to ten years ago?

Turbulence: is it becoming more common? - Telegraph

ATSB claims reports have increased, but I think in essence turbulence has not really increased. Global warming and changing climate patterns may have moved turbulent air masses closer to commonly traversed air routes, but whether that means turbulence has decreased elsewhere? The change of aircraft types used could play a role too; some respond to turbulence better than others.