Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

Were you worried about running out of hours and being unable to continue operating the diverted flight to MEL?

If you had've been close to running out of hours, would it have been easy to have a full crew replace you in SYD? And would this play any part in the decision to divert?

There is a standby crew in Sydney, but unless they called them the instant we mentioned diverting (about 30 minutes prior to descent), it would add substantially to the ground time to switch to them. If there is a lot of notice to the divert (i.e. it's basically pre planned), then the new crew will be waiting when you park.

We looked at the hours situation, and had sufficient time up our sleeves.

Diversion is a reasonably black and white call. You either have sufficient fuel to continue given the requirements, or you don't. The only variable is the point at which you actually divert.

If you believe that things will improve, and the requirements be removed, then the best course will be to continue to a point (for that flight near Albury), from which you can turn back if needed. That will get you to the destination without any delay....if things get better. But, if they don't, then you've added substantial miles, plus most likely burnt your 'hours' margin. The delay on ground will then almost certainly be much longer as the new crew will be needed.

In this case, I couldn't see any advantage in going past Sydney, so we took the fastest method of carrying out the diversion.

If two possible diversion airports are otherwise equal, and one has crew and the other doesn't, then that will play into the decision. Otherwise, because my concern is simply the fuel state, crew issues are something that will be looked at on the ground. Douglas Adams described it as an 'SEP'.

 

[Quickstatus]

Someone asked about pax wanting to offload at SYD. Would this be allowed given that all the luggage would need to be searched for the few items belonging to the departing passengers?

1st hand experience on QF94 diverted to SYD. Final destination SYD. Total pax offloaded 7.

Pax offload in Syd is a secondary concern with permission of captain and availability of mobile stairs in the timeframe envisaged by captain as refuelling is at remote stop. Primary concern would be to complete the journey at MEL with minimum delay.

Checked luggage not offloaded but would travel to MEL then to Final destination.

Benefit here is that you get original routing status credit, you dont have to go through customs and quarantine with checked luggage, and the company delivers the bags to you that afternoon or the next day.

I did not ask for refund for the MEL-SYD sector because when I purchased the ticket it was the same price as QF12

Ok back to Ask The Pilot

 

[aussiel]

For such a diversion, would the amount of fuel added in Sydney just be enough to cover the additional take off and landing, and then divert back to Sydney?

 

[jb747]

For such a diversion, would the amount of fuel added in Sydney just be enough to cover the additional take off and landing, and then divert back to Sydney?

During the approach I told one of the SOs to tell the company to produce a plan with 30 minutes hold, plus a diversion back to Sydney. Once the fuel started flowing, and I had a better idea of what was actually happening with the weather, we bumped that to an hour hold then back to Sydney.

Of course, one of the best aviation theories is...fuel makes the weather go away.

Oh, and for anyone who is wondering...we departed LAX at max weight. We simply could not get the fuel we needed on board, and 90% of the time would not have needed it anyway.

 

[defurax]

Hi JB,

Have you ever landed or taken off from 6R/L or 7R/L at LAX? A friend was flying from ATL to LAX last week and he almost thought the plane had been hijacked when they started flying west over the Pacific ocean before finally turning back to land.
I imagine that considering the location of TBIT at LAX Qantas would save a lot of fuel annually for taxiing if takeoff were from Runway 6/7 instead of 24/25.
Is the wind always light at LAX or the wind is always from the same direction so that's why landing and takeoff are always from R24/25.
I only once was on a flight taking off from 7L and the captain said it was his first departure toward the east in 25 years of flying to LAX.

 

[TomVexille]

The flight plan was still on my iPad. It was planned at 1:03. The shortest I've ever managed was in a 767, at under 50 minutes. MEL-SYD is normally the faster of the two, because it normally has a tailwind.



It is allowed in some circumstances. Leave it at that.



The NOTAM was from the 11th, and doesn't seem to have an end date. I'd assume around a month. As far as I know, mine is the only diversion that was a direct result of the works. There will probably be others, but in many cases there will be ways of avoiding it. 27 will be an option for most aircraft, and sometimes for the 380. In general, if we can legally have a look at an approach, we'll be able to land...it's the making it legal bit that you sometimes need to work on. If Avalon is available, it makes it much easier.

I believe that EK406 diverted to ADL that morning as well.

 

[Quickstatus]

JB747

Does the standard weights for the passengers depend on their age and sex?. Also does the number of passengers on the aircraft modify these standard weights? A Smaller aircraft will need a higher standard passenger weight to minimise the risk of overloading?

How much fuel did you uplift during your pitstop in SYD?

 

[CaptJCool]

I believe that EK406 diverted to ADL that morning as well.

Yes it did

With Mr Squiggle !!!

 

[jb747]

Have you ever landed or taken off from 6R/L or 7R/L at LAX? A friend was flying from ATL to LAX last week and he almost thought the plane had been hijacked when they started flying west over the Pacific ocean before finally turning back to land.
I imagine that considering the location of TBIT at LAX Qantas would save a lot of fuel annually for taxiing if takeoff were from Runway 6/7 instead of 24/25.
Is the wind always light at LAX or the wind is always from the same direction so that's why landing and takeoff are always from R24/25.

LA has many restrictions that affect the 380. The most important is that 07L/25R is not available to us at all. Basically it's too close to the adjacent taxiway.

The normal operational flow at LA has them using 24R and 25L for arrivals and 24L and 25R for departures. There's always exceptions, and they'll often offer a sidestep if a gap opens in the flow. The 380s almost always land on 24R, as it keep us out of the way of the other aircraft, and minimises the impact on their operations. It's a Cat III runway, and although it's the shortest, is plenty long enough.

Departing our options 24L, and 25L. As 25L is a landing runway, and we have to cross its parallel, it can take a long time to get out there (and use 2 tonnes of fuel), so we'll always try to use 24L if possible (taxi fuel then is about 500 kgs). But, as the aircraft is pretty well always at maximum weight, we'll be performance limited if the wind isn't helpful. Most of the time we can handle about 3 knots of downwind, but beyond that we'll need the longer runway.

The overall flow is about noise. They keep takeoffs over the oceans if they possibly can. Early morning, you'll have departures off 25 and arrivals on 06...but we normally arrive just after the time that 06 flicks around to 24. I've arrived early a couple of times, and landed on 06R. 06L could also be used.

Recently the weather, coupled with runway works, forced us to land on 07R. It does rain, heavily, sometimes.

I only once was on a flight taking off from 7L and the captain said it was his first departure toward the east in 25 years of flying to LAX.

I probably said much the same thing from the one and only departure that I've done from 7R.

 

[Quickstatus]

JB747,

is is there a system to the nomenclature of runways?.

 

[jb747]

Does the standard weights for the passengers depend on their age and sex?. Also does the number of passengers on the aircraft modify these standard weights? A Smaller aircraft will need a higher standard passenger weight to minimise the risk of overloading?

In the coughpit we use an arbitrary 100 kgs per passenger for any last minute changes. But, in these days of electronic load sheets, the loading system will invariably issue a load sheet taking the final load into account. The allowed maximum LMC (last minute change) is only 700 kgs, beyond which new load sheets must be produced, so any potential weight error is very small, and within allowed tolerances. Load control use varying passenger weights, depending upon route.

How much fuel did you uplift during your pitstop in SYD?

We departed with 50 tonnes. So, we'd roughly doubled what we arrived with.

 

[jb747]

Is there a system to the nomenclature of runways?.

In general runways are numbered based upon the first two digits of their magnetic heading. So, 06/240 would be 060/240. When you have two runways with the same number, they'll be differentiated by left or right (and sometimes centre).

LA has four runways, all with the same alignment. The actual alignment is 251ºM. So two have the correct 25, and then 24 is given to arbitrarily separate the other pair.

Over time, magnetic variation moves. So whilst a runway's true alignment never changes, its magnetic heading does. Sometimes runways will be renumbered once the variation has moved far enough, though they are just as likely to be left as originally labelled.

Unlike the labelling used on movies...the numbers never exceed 36, and the two numbers associated with a runway are always 18 apart (i.e. Melbourne 16/34)...180º...the reciprocal.

 

[bismarck]

In general runways are numbered based upon the first two digits of their magnetic heading. So, 06/240 would be 060/240. When you have two runways with the same number, they'll be differentiated by left or right (and sometimes centre).

LA has four runways, all with the same alignment. The actual alignment is 251ºM. So two have the correct 25, and then 24 is given to arbitrarily separate the other pair.

Over time, magnetic variation moves. So whilst a runway's true alignment never changes, its magnetic heading does. Sometimes runways will be renumbered once the variation has moved far enough, though they are just as likely to be left as originally labelled.

Unlike the labelling used on movies...the numbers never exceed 36, and the two numbers associated with a runway are always 18 apart (i.e. Melbourne 16/34)...180º...the reciprocal.

I have always wondered this. Great insight.

 

[Flying Fox]

Do differently configured planes fly differently or have to be flown differently?

That is, an MD-80 with two over wing engines at the rear vs A320/B737 etc with two under wing engines vs A380/B747 with four under wing engines?

 

[flychrisfly]

Hi Pilots

I was on a delayed flight recently and was curious to understand when the seat belt signs might be switched on/off. The delay was before takeoff and it was only 20 mins at first and then another 20 mins but then the captain came on and said we'd be delayed a further 50 mins due to cargo loading issues. Understand that 20 mins isn't enough time to let a 747 full of pax run around inside the plane but when the delay is known to be a further 40+ minutes I couldn't understand why we needed to remain seated and not use the loos, for example.

 

[jb747]

Do differently configured planes fly differently or have to be flown differently?

That is, an MD-80 with two over wing engines at the rear vs A320/B737 etc with two under wing engines vs A380/B747 with four under wing engines?

Aircraft behaviour varies dramatically. It's not like a car, where you can jump from one to another, and they are quite similar.

In the aircraft you mention you have FWB and not FBW. Aircraft with extremely strong pitch responses to power changes, and others that are benign.

The MD80 will probably give a limited pitch response, but it may actually be nose down with power increase, whereas a 737 and 747 will pitch up strongly with power increase. The FBW aircraft automatically remove that response...until they don't.

 

[aussiel]

The FBW aircraft automatically remove that response...until they don't.

In the case of a failure like this, is it a matter of assessing the situation and responding (i.e. observing this behaviour, then applying the appropriate control to counter it)? Or does it require knowledge of what will happen in advance to allow pre-emptive controls and thus avoiding the behaviour entirely?

 

[jb747]

In the case of a failure like this, is it a matter of assessing the situation and responding (i.e. observing this behaviour, then applying the appropriate control to counter it)? Or does it require knowledge of what will happen in advance to allow pre-emptive controls and thus avoiding the behaviour entirely?

Pilots always fly by reacting to what is happening. You may expect something...but you can't deal with it until it happens.

The comment I made refers to the fact that after a law change this may be one of the functions you lose. It also disappears as you enter the flare, and can make landings on gusty days (with more power changes) more interesting.

 

[mjt57]

JB, someone shared this on my Facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/ThePilotsLoungePage/posts/1071290626260613?fref=nf

It's the usual coughpit video of a landing in wet weather and a discussion that followed about whether or not the approach should've continued.

I can't comment, but there are those who, not being pilots, including the author of the article, a journalist, no less, who have their opinions.

What are your thoughts?

 

[ChrisGibbs]

JB - with the strong northerly in Melbourne yesterday (Thursday 17/3) both landing and takeoffs were onto / off RWY34. I was on the QF409 SYD-MEL A330-200 service. The PIC said the winds were strong gusting between 30-40kts hence being down to one runway. The approach to RWY34 seems to take you over Essendon to join base for a landing onto RYW34. As we were turning base there were a few significant increases to the power settings that lasted for 3-4 seconds then the power would reduce. Assuming the winds at 4,000ft were 50-60kts from the north were these power changes a result of the aircraft automatics trying to maintain a set IAS for the approach as the wind changed from a 50-60kt tail wind at 4,000ft over Essendon to a 50kt head wind on finals to RWY34. This doesn't seem to be unique to Melbourne or Airbuses as I've also noticed significant power setting changes coming into airports in windy conditions like Wellington RWY34. Assuming you are visual would you typically do a manual approach in these sorts of conditions or continue to let the automatics including auto throttle do the work. Does it get to a point where the automatics can't keep up with the conditions and it's more efficient to fly the approach manually?

Thanks