Ask The Pilot

[MEL_Traveller]

I had originally assumed cabin crew were trained on one type only...

...assured me all EK cabin crew are trained on two types as a minimum and alternate between then frequently in rosters

...

Needless to say I did challenge this from my surprise and was thoroughly assured all were trained on two types as a minimum in EK camp - A380/B777 being the more common subset for most EK staff.

Not unusual.

CX cabin crew are also cross-trained on all types (772/773/A330/A340 and 747). Because of this their rosters include at least one rotation a year on the 747 (usually to HND) even though there are only a couple of planes left in the fleet.

IIRC SQ is similar.

 

[Awesom Andy]

IIRC SQ is similar.

That is correct, they are trained across the A330, 777, and A380.

 

[QF WP]

I came across this story today: https://au.travel.yahoo.com/news/a/...d-has-pilot-announce-pregnancy-during-flight/ (Wife shocks husband, has pilot announce pregnancy during flight)

jb747 or Boris, have you been asked to make any similar kind of announcements?

 

[Boris spatsky]

I came across this story today: https://au.travel.yahoo.com/news/a/...d-has-pilot-announce-pregnancy-during-flight/ (Wife shocks husband, has pilot announce pregnancy during flight)

jb747 or Boris, have you been asked to make any similar kind of announcements?

Ummm no. Not quite like that. Only one i can think of that was requested was a 21st birthday.

 

[Awesom Andy]

Ummm no. Not quite like that. Only one i can think of that was requested was a 21st birthday.

How likely would such requested be accepted? I guess it's easier to do this on a long-haul flight, but the higher workload on a short-haul might make it more difficult (e.g. pilots need to work/prepare on the approach/landing procedures as soon as or before the flight reaches cruise levels).

 

[Boris spatsky]

How likely would such requested be accepted? I guess it's easier to do this on a long-haul flight, but the higher workload on a short-haul might make it more difficult (e.g. pilots need to work/prepare on the approach/landing procedures as soon as or before the flight reaches cruise levels).

Depends on the company. Some do not allow it, some do. Workload generally not a factor, we have to do the PA anyway.

 

[Shamrock55]

Ah, Wellington. Full power, idle, repeat.

I have flown Piper Tomahawks at Wellington and it can be crazy, have you had experience flying in there too? Was it for Jetconnect?

 

[jb747]

How likely would such requested be accepted? I guess it's easier to do this on a long-haul flight, but the higher workload on a short-haul might make it more difficult (e.g. pilots need to work/prepare on the approach/landing procedures as soon as or before the flight reaches cruise levels).

At times there are requests, but in general, what seems like a great idea to the person asking isn't to the remaining 99% of the passengers. So, to answer the question, it's very unlikely that I would grant it. If it's your 100th birthday, you're probably on though.

 

[jb747]

I have flown Piper Tomahawks at Wellington and it can be crazy, have you had experience flying in there too? Was it for Jetconnect?

I've flown into Wellington many times, in the 767. In fact, my very first landing during my on line training was there, as was the very last sector of my command training. They like tossing you in the deep end. It can be an absolute t**d of a place, and, to be honest, I'm surprised that there haven't been more accidents there.

Who are Jetconnect?

 

[Major]

I take you were not flying QF 9 yesterday ?

 

[jb747]

I take you were not flying QF 9 yesterday ?

I'm on annual leave.

 

[Quickstatus]

Who are Jetconnect?

 

[CaviAck]

I've flown into Wellington many times, in the 767. In fact, my very first landing during my on line training was there, as was the very last sector of my command training. They like tossing you in the deep end. It can be an absolute t**d of a place, and, to be honest, I'm surprised that there haven't been more accidents there.

Who are Jetconnect?

I thought this was the "Ask the Pilot" thread not the "Pilots Ask Questions" thread

It's an AKL based subsidiary of QF that operates 738s across the ditch using NZ rego and crews.

 

[jb747]

When we started this thread, the intention was for questions/comments to be related to the pointy end of the aircraft. Not cabin crew, and not Qantas either. Some QF questions are taken anyway, but in general it's supposed to be airline agnostic. The pilots who do answer here regularly all come from different airlines and aircraft.

My comment re Jetconnect was just meant to be cheeky/funny. I really don't appreciate you placing words in my mouth.

 

[CaviAck]

When we started this thread, the intention was for questions/comments to be related to the pointy end of the aircraft. Not cabin crew, and not Qantas either. Some QF questions are taken anyway, but in general it's supposed to be airline agnostic. The pilots who do answer here regularly all come from different airlines and aircraft.

My comment re Jetconnect was just meant to be cheeky/funny. I really don't appreciate you placing words in my mouth.

My appologies then JB, I didn't intend to put words in your mouth, was just trying to be cheeky. And I was just answering the question as if you were really asking.

 

[jb747]

It wasn't your comment. The one that annoyed has been removed. Time to move on anyway.

 

[jb747]

This is probably topical, and will be far outside the experience of most people.

The average time that a non instrument rated pilot takes to lose control of an aircraft in IMC is 178 seconds. The instruments themselves aren't all that hard to read, and most pilots (before instrument training) think that they can do so....so why all the fuss (and training) for an instrument rating. The difference is that when they are flying in nice weather and looking at the instruments...they aren't in cloud. So, they're actually looking outside most of the time, which has the effect t of constantly resetting the brain/ear.

But, when you actually enter cloud, you can now experience various illusions.

I'm sure there are many here who can describe the design of our inner ears much better than me, but the upshot evolution that did not including flying, is that our ears are subject to a number of illusions. These can be incredibly strong...not just some vague feeling.

Once you take away the visual cues, the ear cannot distinguish any difference between 'down' as defined by gravity, or 'down' as caused by any aircraft movement. And to make it more fun, another part of the ear confuses acceleration with pitch.

This shows itself a number of ways in aircraft. Probably the one that is seen most often is called the 'leans'. In this case the aircraft has slowly rolled away from level, without the pilot noticing. When he looks at the AI, he corrects the error. His ear notices the correction...and even though he's now level, the ear thinks the aircraft has some roll. The feeling fades after a couple of minutes.

The illusion that is possibly topical at the moment is called somatagravic illusion. It can manifest itself in two ways. Basically, you experience a rapid increase in speed and sense that as a pitch up. The reverse also happens. Catapult launches would probably be the extreme case, but it has been implicated in many accidents over the years. Rostov may simply be the most recent.

The most important lesson of instrument flying is that you MUST believe your instruments. Yes, they can go wrong, but that is extremely unlikely, and even then there are workarounds. But, you must never believe your senses....they will be wrong every time.

 

[knasty]

JB, very interesting thank you. I know AF447 has been discussed a lot in the past and may not be an ideal example but as a layman I've wondered how the pilots involved in high-level stalls don't feel the stall and, irrespective of what their instruments tell them, power up to what they know to be an appropriate thrust level. Based on your comments above, is it because you are trained to ignore those sensations?

 

[harvyk]

This is probably topical, and will be far outside the experience of most people.

The average time that a non instrument rated pilot takes to lose control of an aircraft in IMC is 178 seconds. The instruments themselves aren't all that hard to read, and most pilots (before instrument training) think that they can do so....so why all the fuss (and training) for an instrument rating. The difference is that when they are flying in nice weather and looking at the instruments...they aren't in cloud. So, they're actually looking outside most of the time, which has the effect t of constantly resetting the brain/ear.

But, when you actually enter cloud, you can now experience various illusions.

I'm sure there are many here who can describe the design of our inner ears much better than me, but the upshot evolution that did not including flying, is that our ears are subject to a number of illusions. These can be incredibly strong...not just some vague feeling.

Once you take away the visual cues, the ear cannot distinguish any difference between 'down' as defined by gravity, or 'down' as caused by any aircraft movement. And to make it more fun, another part of the ear confuses acceleration with pitch.

This shows itself a number of ways in aircraft. Probably the one that is seen most often is called the 'leans'. In this case the aircraft has slowly rolled away from level, without the pilot noticing. When he looks at the AI, he corrects the error. His ear notices the correction...and even though he's now level, the ear thinks the aircraft has some roll. The feeling fades after a couple of minutes.

The illusion that is possibly topical at the moment is called somatagravic illusion. It can manifest itself in two ways. Basically, you experience a rapid increase in speed and sense that as a pitch up. The reverse also happens. Catapult launches would probably be the extreme case, but it has been implicated in many accidents over the years. Rostov may simply be the most recent.

The most important lesson of instrument flying is that you MUST believe your instruments. Yes, they can go wrong, but that is extremely unlikely, and even then there are workarounds. But, you must never believe your senses....they will be wrong every time.

With this in mind, how well do full motion simulators manage to trick the ear (and other senses) when they move compared to the instruments? Does it feel realistic, with the realistic level of confusion that can happen, or do they feel different in yet another way?

 

[jb747]

JB, very interesting thank you. I know AF447 has been discussed a lot in the past and may not be an ideal example but as a layman I've wondered how the pilots involved in high-level stalls don't feel the stall and, irrespective of what their instruments tell them, power up to what they know to be an appropriate thrust level. Based on your comments above, is it because you are trained to ignore those sensations?

I expect it that no matter how much it shook, it wasn't inside the tunnel they were looking through. You'd be amazed at what your system can filter out. QF30 climbed at a peak rate of 100,000 fpm, which you'd think you'd notice...but none of us (in the coughpit) did.

AF447 is a probably an example of how confusion can destroy any logic. In no world does an AB need to be at a pitch attitude of greater than about 3º when over FL300...and yet it was pulled to 15º and held there. The only outcome of that will be a deep stall. Air Asia was lost because someone couldn't fly it without the autopilot for 9 seconds. I expect that goes back to the boardroom.

Selection of thrust isn't necessarily a good idea in recovering from the stall. The chances are that the aircraft will have auto trimmed itself to very nearly full nose up. Power provides a pitch up couple, and may be put you back into, or just deepen, the stall. A stall is an aerodynamic event. It's fixed by reducing the angle of attack, and only after that, when out of the stall, should power be feed back in.

Being locked on to the attitude display, and understanding what it was showing, would have worked in AF and AA.