Ask The Pilot

  • Thread starter Thread starter NM
  • Start date Start date
  • Featured
Given events in PER today, here's a question on the rules surrounding lightning.

What are the rules for flying or airfield movements during lightning? Who prescribes these rules - carriers, relevant aviation authorities, individual airfields or someone else all together?

And also a bonus point question: What about on the airfield itself (ie ground/apron staff, fuel, services etc)? Who controls, decides or regulates if this type of work can occur during a lightning event within close proximity of the airfield? (I understand it's usually within a 5mi radius, but that's the limit of my knowledge)
 
My point earlier was genuine surprise that aircraft from the same airline with the same fit out would have different weights.

I'll try to keep track of the basic weights over the next few flights, and we'll see what the exact range is.
 
So I am booked on SQ237 - dep SIN at 00:45 on Nov 30 - am one of the first on board and park my cough in my seat.

Call little stunner over and ask for champagne - by the time she returns I realise it is way hot - say jeez it's hot in here - one moment Sir - I will check the temperature setting - returns and says YES it is a little hot in here as temperature on ground always a couple degrees warmer than in air. What is temp set at? In air we usually set it at 22 to 23 deg - but always a little warmer on ground.

Question 1 - Why is 22deg on ground warmer that 22deg in air?

Firstly, what she has told you is most likely the temperature the system is set to....not the actual temperature. The air-conditioning systems often struggle on the ground, for a number of reasons. One, is that just before you board, large number of doors are open to the outside environment, as cleaners, caterers and engineers ready the aircraft. Secondly, as you've said you're on SQ, and in Singapore, I'd suspect that they are saving fuel by having the APU shut down for as long as possible, and are getting their air from the fixed system on the bridge. Thirdly, the humidity on the ground is much higher than you'll experience in the air, and that always has the effect of making it feel hotter and stickier.

I drink my second glass of Champers and then there is announcement from Pilot - good evening passengers - blah blah blah........................sorry to inform you but we will have a brief delay before pushing back tonight - because of prevailing weather conditions flight tonight SIN-MEL will experience very strong tail winds which would put us in MEL 40mins early and Melbourne Airport will not accept us at that time - so please be patient.
Presumably the first flight in the morning. Customs are not open, so you will not be allowed to disembark if you arrive early. You may not even be able to park....

Question 2 - Can't the Jelopy Jockey up the tip just drive in 3rd gear? Can't he propel that focker forward with the hand brake on or sumpin' - like depart at designated time and just fly slower - wouldn't that save fuel or whatever and not have pax sitting in sauna like conditions getting totally pissed off at the delay?
Flying slower does not save fuel. Aircraft are flown very slightly faster than their minimum lift/drag speed. And they also climb until that speed isn't all that far below their maximum speed. The upshot of that is that at normal cruising altitudes, an aircraft may be around .04 mach below max speed, and about .02 mach above min l/d. At altitude, .01 mach equates to about 6 knots IAS, and about 10 knots groundspeed. So, you could slow by about 20 knots G/S, which over the 7 hours of the flight you mention would save you 140 miles, or about 15 minutes. But, because you are now flying much slower than the rest of the stream, ATC are just as likely to deny you the altitudes you want, and you'll be forced lower...where you'll burn more fuel anyway. And just to make it more confusing, depending upon the aircraft, slowing, even by that .02, may well reduce the altitude that you're allowed (by the performance of the aircraft) to fly at, which will in turn increase the burn.

Next, much of the costings of running an aircraft are based upon time. Engine hours, part hours, etc. So, wasting those hours also incurs a cost.

By the same token, very little time can be gained by flying faster. Whilst I've said that I could fly about .04 faster (40 knots g/s), in practice that is not available for more than very short periods. The power needed would be max continuous, and the fuel burn would be such that you wouldn't get to destination at all. Even a period as short as 10 minutes cannot be economically made up over a 10 hour sector, without seriously eating into the fuel reserves.

What should have happened, is that boarding should not have been allowed until about 30 minutes prior to the revised schedule....then you could have stayed in the lounge.
 
I'll try to keep track of the basic weights over the next few flights, and we'll see what the exact range is.

Interesting - thanks!

Did the 744s or 763s have the same variation? (Edit: for clarification, as a % rather than 5 tons).
 
Last edited:
jb747 thank you a million for taking the time and effort to answer my queries - kind knocked over by the degree of detail you have included - again I am so appreciative.

I did kind realise the answer to the temp bit - but SQ are serial antagonists in this regard - SIN in particular - but even MEL I have experienced really warm cabin on boarding
Presumably the first flight in the morning. Customs are not open, so you will not be allowed to disembark if you arrive early. You may not even be able to park....
SQ237 was scheduled to arrive 11:20 so not first flight.
What should have happened, is that boarding should not have been allowed until about 30 minutes prior to the revised schedule....then you could have stayed in the lounge.
Exactly what I thought - given I take a sleeping tablet as soon as I sit on seat on SQ237 - I would much rather have known there was going be a delay prior to dropping pill - I coulda stayed inna SK lounge and downed a few more Bolly's prior to boarding.

Again jb747 thanks ever so much for taking the time - totally appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Don't think it's likely that they would be using the spoilers at the top of descent?
Whilst we try not to use the speed brakes at the start of a descent, the reality is that the descent clearance does not always come at the time we ask for it, or, it is often accompanied by a requirement for a reduction in speed...both will put us above the nominal descent path, and will require some level of speed brake.
 
I believe there is a difference between spoilers and speed brakes even if some aircraft share the same surfaces.

On most aircraft, the speed brakes, ground spoilers, and spoilers share the same set of panels.

Ground spoilers are the full set, raised all the way. They immediately dump most of the wing's lift, sit the aircraft down firmly in the wheels, and allow the brakes to work at their best.

Speed brakes are a subset of the spoilers. They don't raise all the way, and work symmetrically. They are used to kill energy..be it speed or altitude.

Spoilers are another subset, and are used asymmetrically for roll control.
 
Last edited:
What are the rules for flying or airfield movements during lightning? Who prescribes these rules - carriers, relevant aviation authorities, individual airfields or someone else all together?

And also a bonus point question: What about on the airfield itself (ie ground/apron staff, fuel, services etc)? Who controls, decides or regulates if this type of work can occur during a lightning event within close proximity of the airfield? (I understand it's usually within a 5mi radius, but that's the limit of my knowledge)

I have no idea who controls OH&S items like this. I would expect various government bodies would have most say.

Lightning isn't the only issue of course...from feedback last night, the aircraft radar paint over YPPH was actually showing 'black', which is just a no go area.

I can imagine it was extremely painful for all involved. On the other hand, having some staff electrocuted whilst moving luggage, or even worse having an aircraft come down, would be rather more so. Most people have no idea how nasty thunderstorms can be, especially when near the ground.

Of course, some airlines treat them differently to others. On one occasion when I was flying the 767, we lined up in Singapore...took one look at the radar, and decided to pull off the runway, and wait for it to depart. We were joined by BA, Cathay, and a couple of others. Various others took off straight into it, which basically gave me a list of people never to fly with. Similar happened in HK one night...a long queue of aircraft, and the first one to go was a freighter. He came up on tower shortly after takeoff with a comment of "guys, do not take off, dangerous shear". All but one in the queue, elected to go back to the gate. Interestingly, that one came from an airline that had just recently lost a 747 in a take off incident.
 
Did the 744s or 763s have the same variation? (Edit: for clarification, as a % rather than 5 tons).

Yes, but pretty hard now to find out what the delivery weights were. The configurations now vary so much that you'd be hard pressed to find two alike.
 
It sounds as if going by Geoffrey Thomas' piece in the paper today, that QF were the main culprits for the delays yesterday, and that other airlines came and went as they pleased.
Although there would be some legislation involved here, is there also provisions in the Agreements that stipulate when the ground crew can and can not work in relation to weather like this?

As for the A380 question, aren't most the Airbus planes slower than the Boeing equivalents by just that little bit?
 
It sounds as if going by Geoffrey Thomas' piece in the paper today, that QF were the main culprits for the delays yesterday, and that other airlines came and went as they pleased.
Although there would be some legislation involved here, is there also provisions in the Agreements that stipulate when the ground crew can and can not work in relation to weather like this?

As for the A380 question, aren't most the Airbus planes slower than the Boeing equivalents by just that little bit?

Reading the article here:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/...antas-passengers-fume-as-storm-creates-chaos/

Says that it was due to union regulations that don't appear to affect other airlines. I could be wrong but I always thought that when're airport or Airservices controlled that aspect of suspending operations during lightning storms.
 
To give you an idea what a simulator session can look like...

Start by doing two circuits at Singapore (one for Captain, one for FO).

Jump into the cruise, heading to Sydney from Singapore. All of the systems are loaded as per a normal flight. Uplink data about a volcano, which turns out to be more or less on track. Within a couple of minutes (and really just about the time you manage to work out that it's close to track), actual smoke starts to appear in the coughpit. Declare emergency, start 180 degree turn, action volcanic encounter checklist (which basically gets the engine air loads to max, thrust to idle, oxy masks on). Single engine compressor stalls. Before you can do anything about that, the others over temp, and then flame out. All generators drop off line, RAT deploys, and the aircraft switches to emergency electrical configuration. Flight controls drop to direct law, all automatics cease functioning. Most coughpit displays go blank, apart from those in front of the Captain.

Numerous smoke messages start appearing.

Airspeed starts to decay. Continues until both the remaining main display and the backup both reject the airspeed and show nothing (this happens slowly, and initially you pitch down to correct it...but once you reach about -2 degrees, it starts to look wrong). Altimeter and VSI go blank.

Pressurisation warnings.

Fly pitch only, roll out on reciprocal heading. Complete volcanic encounter checklist. Action all engine flame out checklist. No restarts on first couple of attempts. Start APU. This will allow starter assisted starts, instead of windmilling.

Turn off all three ADRs (air data computers). This will bring up an angle of attack display, and GPS altitude.

Continue start attempts (now around 17,000 feet). Two engines very slowly start. As soon as they are available, push them up. Continue attempts on the others. Eventually they restart.

Get some instrumentation up for the FO (his system does not come back on line when the generators power up). Get the cabin below 10,000 feet (so you can get the mask off...much easier then). Remember there are big mountains all around, so that is an issue. Work through all remaining checklists, and ensure that those that had to be short cut are completed. Decide where you want to go, and look at weight/jettision. Exercise is complete when FO announces 'ECAM actions complete'.

But....the airspeed data NEVER recovers, and the aircraft has no airspeed or barometric altitude data. You still have GPS/INS groundspeed, GPS altitude, and angle of attack. No automatics can be recovered and the aircraft remains in direct law. Irrespective of what you decided you'd like to do (i.e. go to Jakarta or Singapore), the aircraft will be jumped to a point about 20 miles from Bali, where you will fly an ILS using what you have left. Because of the blasting of the windscreen, your vis is extremely reduced, and the ILS must be flown almost to touchdown.

Go get a coffee (and a new shirt).

Fly two approaches to the Bali ILS without automatics but in the normal laws. This is done with a take off each, and you basically fly a departure and arrival. FO take off suffers engine failure. Abort (this is always done by the Captain).

Low vis training. This is a series of takeoffs and landings in fog. The takeoffs may involve engine problems from which you have to abort, or you may continue. It's all about the decisions. Approaches...some work normally. Random problems are dropped in.

Airwork...a look at the various protections available in normal, alternate and direct law. Stall recoveries at high level, right down to circuit level.

Engine failures. A look at a couple at unusual times, when the procedures that we normally practice either aren't appropriate, or don't work well.

Collapse.
 
When lightning/storms are within 5nm (9Km) of the airport boundary, the recommendation is for an airport operations shutdown for safety reasons based on The International Air Transport Association (IATA) Airport Handling Manual (AHM) chapter 630 section 6 which details Severe Weather Operations (high winds and thunderstorms).

http://www.aagsc.org/members/aagsc_adm/UploadFiles/RIP05_safetyconsiderationsforthunderstorms.pdf

And a quick look also found lightning mentioned in the NSW OH&S laws. Presumably others.
 
Thanks jb747 & markis10, exactly the information I was looking for.

Just a shame that the IATA AHM costs so much to get one's hands on. Sect. 630 would be an interesting read in this context.
 
To give you an idea what a simulator session can look like...

Start by doing two circuits at Singapore (one for Captain, one for FO).

Jump into the cruise, heading to Sydney from Singapore. All of the systems are loaded as per a normal flight. Uplink data about a volcano, which turns out to be more or less on track. Within a couple of minutes (and really just about the time you manage to work out that it's close to track), actual smoke starts to appear in the coughpit. Declare emergency, start 180 degree turn, action volcanic encounter checklist (which basically gets the engine air loads to max, thrust to idle, oxy masks on). Single engine compressor stalls. Before you can do anything about that, the others over temp, and then flame out. All generators drop off line, RAT deploys, and the aircraft switches to emergency electrical configuration. Flight controls drop to direct law, all automatics cease functioning. Most coughpit displays go blank, apart from those in front of the Captain.

Numerous smoke messages start appearing.

Airspeed starts to decay. Continues until both the remaining main display and the backup both reject the airspeed and show nothing (this happens slowly, and initially you pitch down to correct it...but once you reach about -2 degrees, it starts to look wrong). Altimeter and VSI go blank.

Pressurisation warnings.

Fly pitch only, roll out on reciprocal heading. Complete volcanic encounter checklist. Action all engine flame out checklist. No restarts on first couple of attempts. Start APU. This will allow starter assisted starts, instead of windmilling.

Turn off all three ADRs (air data computers). This will bring up an angle of attack display, and GPS altitude.

Continue start attempts (now around 17,000 feet). Two engines very slowly start. As soon as they are available, push them up. Continue attempts on the others. Eventually they restart.

Get some instrumentation up for the FO (his system does not come back on line when the generators power up). Get the cabin below 10,000 feet (so you can get the mask off...much easier then). Remember there are big mountains all around, so that is an issue. Work through all remaining checklists, and ensure that those that had to be short cut are completed. Decide where you want to go, and look at weight/jettision. Exercise is complete when FO announces 'ECAM actions complete'.

But....the airspeed data NEVER recovers, and the aircraft has no airspeed or barometric altitude data. You still have GPS/INS groundspeed, GPS altitude, and angle of attack. No automatics can be recovered and the aircraft remains in direct law. Irrespective of what you decided you'd like to do (i.e. go to Jakarta or Singapore), the aircraft will be jumped to a point about 20 miles from Bali, where you will fly an ILS using what you have left. Because of the blasting of the windscreen, your vis is extremely reduced, and the ILS must be flown almost to touchdown.

Go get a coffee (and a new shirt).

Fly two approaches to the Bali ILS without automatics but in the normal laws. This is done with a take off each, and you basically fly a departure and arrival. FO take off suffers engine failure. Abort (this is always done by the Captain).

Low vis training. This is a series of takeoffs and landings in fog. The takeoffs may involve engine problems from which you have to abort, or you may continue. It's all about the decisions. Approaches...some work normally. Random problems are dropped in.

Airwork...a look at the various protections available in normal, alternate and direct law. Stall recoveries at high level, right down to circuit level.

Engine failures. A look at a couple at unusual times, when the procedures that we normally practice either aren't appropriate, or don't work well.

Collapse.
Holy cough, this is epic. I would love to observe some pilots undertaking this simulation.
 
That's asking how long is a piece of string. Rough numbers say that it could.

Do the rough numbers say it would do it better than the 744?

Also, thanks for the detailed info on the SIM JB. Is it unheard of for someone to crash in a SIM?
 
Last edited:
Read our AFF credit card guides and start earning more points now.

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