Ask The Pilot

[harvyk]

Getting this back to a question for pilots, yes the test engine above is mounted on a 747, and yes 747's are typically used for alternate power tests (eg bio-fuel tests seem to be done on quads as well), however wouldn't twins be suitable for such tests as well since twins are suppose to be able to fly on a single engine (for long distances) if required, or would there be other risks in flying untested technologies on twins which would not be covered under certain rules.

 

[Shamrock55]

If the weather permits, do you ever fly "tight" visual circuits of airports by hand in the A380? Like a much extended version of flying a circuit in a Cessna with only a few mile to final?

Or would you always go out as far as FAF or join the ILS or fly out 5-10 miles before turning base?

As part of line training do you hammer away at touch and go's flying circuits for a certain amount of hours?

 

[jb747]

Getting this back to a question for pilots, yes the test engine above is mounted on a 747, and yes 747's are typically used for alternate power tests (eg bio-fuel tests seem to be done on quads as well), however wouldn't twins be suitable for such tests as well since twins are suppose to be able to fly on a single engine (for long distances) if required, or would there be other risks in flying untested technologies on twins which would not be covered under certain rules.

Whilst I have no idea of the rules for this form of test flying, it would seem to make sense to do so on the aircraft that is least likely to be affected by issues with the new engine...and there are bound to be some.

 

[jb747]

If the weather permits, do you ever fly "tight" visual circuits of airports by hand in the A380? Like a much extended version of flying a circuit in a Cessna with only a few mile to final?

Or would you always go out as far as FAF or join the ILS or fly out 5-10 miles before turning base?

As part of line training do you hammer away at touch and go's flying circuits for a certain amount of hours?

Whilst we do practise flying classical circuits in the sim, and would do so if the need arose, the reality of the aircraft is that it is flown at the back of the clock, on very long flights. Common sense dictates flying the straight in approach where possible. We don't have any issues flying it from 4-5 miles though.

Line training means you have passengers on board...so hopefully no circuits at all.

Base training was the old circuit sessions at Avalon, etc. It is no longer done.

 

[andmiz]

Getting this back to a question for pilots, yes the test engine above is mounted on a 747, and yes 747's are typically used for alternate power tests (eg bio-fuel tests seem to be done on quads as well), however wouldn't twins be suitable for such tests as well since twins are suppose to be able to fly on a single engine (for long distances) if required, or would there be other risks in flying untested technologies on twins which would not be covered under certain rules.

Also worth considering when trying to deduce GE's decision making process, is that the 747 has approvals to take-off with only 3 engines; so having 3 engines which are certified for the aircraft, and one experimental engine may reduce GE's regulatory burden.

Base training was the old circuit sessions at Avalon, etc. It is no longer done.

We still conduct base training for all our types (777, 747, A330/340/350 family) but who knows how long the practice will continue for.

 

[por930]

We still conduct base training for all our types (777, 747, A330/340/350 family) but who knows how long the practice will continue for.

andmiz, A lot of the airlines seem to prefer using sim hours and then release the training pilot to line work with a training captain. Does your airline have spare aircraft they can schedule into type training between line work? I would have thought your bean counters would have stopped this. Though saying this, recently in Australia, a pilot apparently, on his first 'real' flight as PIC in a A320 had a tail strike on take off. Maybe just one of those things on the day, and maybe some prior base training may have got him over the "first real flight" nervousness?

Without naming your airline, the aircraft in your airline imply you fly pax rather than cargo!

 

[jb747]

andmiz, A lot of the airlines seem to prefer using sim hours and then release the training pilot to line work with a training captain. Does your airline have spare aircraft they can schedule into type training between line work? I would have thought your bean counters would have stopped this. Though saying this, recently in Australia, a pilot apparently, on his first 'real' flight as PIC in a A320 had a tail strike on take off. Maybe just one of those things on the day, and maybe some prior base training may have got him over the "first real flight" nervousness?

When I first flew the 747 Classic, each of the SOs on their FO course got a minimum of 5 hours in the circuit at Avalon. The sims weren't nearly as good as they are now. Nevertheless, the sim isn't the real world. But, it's unlikely that substantial base training will ever make a return...the bean counters have won.

For what it's worth, the A320 cadet was not the PIC...that's the captain's job.

Without naming your airline, the aircraft in your airline imply you fly pax rather than cargo!

Get out your venn diagrams....

 

[Altair]

Without naming your airline, the aircraft in your airline imply you fly pax rather than cargo!

Only one airline I know still flies all those types, and one pax type for not much longer, if they have not already retired them leaving only freighter versions.

 

[andmiz]

Only one airline I know still flies all those types, and one pax type for not much longer, if they have not already retired them leaving only freighter versions.

Our last pax 747's are slated to be retired between July and September, which is a pity because most of us believe they still fulfil a purposeful duty flying locally and no-one wants to see the Queen go. Remaining on the 747 fleet are 20+ freighters which will be around for a long time yet.

 

[por930]

When I first flew the 747 Classic, each of the SOs on their FO course got a minimum of 5 hours in the circuit at Avalon. The sims weren't nearly as good as they are now. Nevertheless, the sim isn't the real world. But, it's unlikely that substantial base training will ever make a return...the bean counters have won.

For what it's worth, the A320 cadet was not the PIC...that's the captain's job.

Yes, jb, my mistake, PF, pilot flying...

I recall one flying instructor being a very nervous flyer, even after several circuits and no mishaps, he would still keep his hands almost on the controls and feet hovering above the rudder pedals. He used to make me nervous as he would constantly move his hands and feet in anticipation, which was a signal to me, "he thinks something needs doing very soon", and if ever he moved his hands/feet for no reason I had to try and ignore this.

jb, are you qualified as a training captain, or do you only get assigned FO's when they are suitably experienced, and even then, are you always in a state of readiness?

 

[jb747]

I recall one flying instructor being a very nervous flyer, even after several circuits and no mishaps, he would still keep his hands almost on the controls and feet hovering above the rudder pedals. He used to make me nervous as he would constantly move his hands and feet in anticipation, which was a signal to me, "he thinks something needs doing very soon", and if ever he moved his hands/feet for no reason I had to try and ignore this.

He's not really a good flying instructor....or, you are really scary. Cross out as appropriate.

jb, are you qualified as a training captain, or do you only get assigned FO's when they are suitably experienced, and even then, are you always in a state of readiness?

No, I'm not a training Captain. I'm too old now, and back when I was younger I would have run away as fast as possible. I was an RAAF qualified instructor, and taught at 1FTS for a couple of years.

Once an FO is cleared to the line, he can fly with any captain. I used to see new FOs quite regularly when I was on the 767, and it was an aircraft that could bite. We all knew where the areas to be careful were. Issues like the potential for tail scrapes were at the top of the list.

On our 747s and 380s there is no such thing as an inexperienced FO. He might be new to the type, but they all have many, many, thousands of hours. There are times when you'll have your hand on the controls in anticipation (because the controls aren't physically linked, that doesn't cause issues in the AB), but normally only below about 100'.

 

[por930]

He's not really a good flying instructor....or, you are really scary. Cross out as appropriate..

LOL^^^^ No, in many years, never bent any thing. I have always followed the rule, 'old pilots are not bold pilots', and if in doubt, double check.

 

[casanovawa]

On our 747s and 380s there is no such thing as an inexperienced FO. He might be new to the type, but they all have many, many, thousands of hours.

I think you've said before that there is no real benefit in flying with other pilots that you know, that having a new pilot sitting next to you can be just as safe as the benefits of pilots that know each other and work together...

But is the number of Captains and FOs on A380s such a small fraternity that you pretty much all know each other these days and have done multiple flights together?

Does much new blood join the group or just the odd retirement or pilot leaving Qantas open up a new slot for a potential entrant?

 

[jb747]

I think you've said before that there is no real benefit in flying with other pilots that you know, that having a new pilot sitting next to you can be just as safe as the benefits of pilots that know each other and work together...

I guess it shows the value of the way they train, but there's just no difference to flying with someone you've never met vs a bloke you've flown with many times. That's always happened across the fleets. Anyone who is procedurally different stands out...and is fixed, one way or the other.

But is the number of Captains and FOs on A380s such a small fraternity that you pretty much all know each other these days and have done multiple flights together?

I guess because I've been around for a fairly long time now, that I've seen individual pilots on a number of aircraft, and in different ranks. But, I probably don't know more than about half of the 380 Captains, beyond saying hello. Of the FOs, I've probably flown with about half, but just as likely on other aircraft.

Does much new blood join the group or just the odd retirement or pilot leaving Qantas open up a new slot for a potential entrant?

There has been precious little movement in the ranks for about the last decade. Growth that previously might have happened has been directed to Jetstar, and they're a different pilot group. The retirement of many of the 747s, and of the 767, has actually led to both VR, and forced reductions in rank. It's fair to say that it's been a pretty unhappy pilot group for quite a while.

The loss of the 767 meant that quite a few rather senior individuals had to be accommodated on other types. That led to many 767 Captains becoming 380 FOs...with the people who had held those positions either being demoted to SO, or taking FO slots on other types (with the possibility of them also displacing the incumbents). Those ripple effects have largely ceased now, and with the advent of the 787 there is some hope for the future, beyond waiting for the old blokes to retire.

 

[Captain Halliday]

I guess it shows the value of the way they train, but there's just no difference to flying with someone you've never met vs a bloke you've flown with many times. That's always happened across the fleets. Anyone who is procedurally different stands out...and is fixed, one way or the other.



I guess because I've been around for a fairly long time now, that I've seen individual pilots on a number of aircraft, and in different ranks. But, I probably don't know more than about half of the 380 Captains, beyond saying hello. Of the FOs, I've probably flown with about half, but just as likely on other aircraft.



There has been precious little movement in the ranks for about the last decade. Growth that previously might have happened has been directed to Jetstar, and they're a different pilot group. The retirement of many of the 747s, and of the 767, has actually led to both VR, and forced reductions in rank. It's fair to say that it's been a pretty unhappy pilot group for quite a while.

The loss of the 767 meant that quite a few rather senior individuals had to be accommodated on other types. That led to many 767 Captains becoming 380 FOs...with the people who had held those positions either being demoted to SO, or taking FO slots on other types (with the possibility of them also displacing the incumbents). Those ripple effects have largely ceased now, and with the advent of the 787 there is some hope for the future, beyond waiting for the old blokes to retire.

Given your view that the pilot group is "pretty unhappy", would the pilot group support a change to the structure/process where tenure appears to be the primary factor in career advancement? Or perhaps, as you cant speak for all, would you?

If the system is working (especially in Aussie operations) it would seem bad pilots are generally identified during SIM and other checking processes. But beyond that, promotion seems almost entirely based on seniority. Is that the best way? Would a merit system be better? I don't know of many professions beyond pilots and university professors, where tenure is the primary criteria for advancement.

I know every individual's circumstances are different, but might there be an argument that an FO with 6 years on 380 would be a better FO on that type than and 767 captain just out of retraining on 380?

 

[jb747]

Given your view that the pilot group is "pretty unhappy", would the pilot group support a change to the structure/process where tenure appears to be the primary factor in career advancement? Or perhaps, as you cant speak for all, would you?

Most definitely not. Everybody has to keep up the standard, and they then have to dance the dance when their slot comes up.

If the system is working (especially in Aussie operations) it would seem bad pilots are generally identified during SIM and other checking processes. But beyond that, promotion seems almost entirely based on seniority. Is that the best way? Would a merit system be better? I don't know of many professions beyond pilots and university professors, where tenure is the primary criteria for advancement.

Passing the course is the criteria for promotion. It's simply a queue getting access to it. Anyway, the time isn't wasted.

I know every individual's circumstances are different, but might there be an argument that an FO with 6 years on 380 would be a better FO on that type than and 767 captain just out of retraining on 380?

That's the rub. Whilst the FOs have been bloody good FOs, the demoted Captains have actually been Captains. There's not one that I've flown with who isn't an exceptional FO, and I rest very easy when my time in the bunk comes up. Time in the aircraft doesn't count for as much as you might think, compared to experience overall.

 

[ChrisGibbs]

Sydney weather (Friday 27/05) had strong westerlies for most of the afternoon with arrivals and most departures using RWY25. Arrivals and departures out of Sydney were delayed resulting in consequential delays across the network. I was delayed out of Melbourne for about 90 minutes back into Sydney due to flow control being in place. I noticed the SIN, BKK, MNL A330's got away off RWY25 however the long haul A380's and 744's still used RWY34L for departures. In conditions similar to today in Sydney when planning for one of the longer A380 / 744 flights and the max x/wind is above the limits do you have the option of taking on less fuel / freight, etc and depart off RWY25 planning via Perth (for splash and dash) to Dubai and similarly plan via Nadi for the trans pacific flights? Or do you plan as per normal and "wait" until the x-winds gets inside the maximum? I can remember a few years ago on the "old" QF107 sector to LAX and the x-wind was near the maximum with arrivals and departures using RWY25. We taxied down to the threshold of RWY34L and waited for 30+minutes until the x-wind settled down and we could get into the sequence to allow a take-off from RWY35L as opposed to RWY25. I remember the PIC describing us an "orphan" as we were the only aircraft waiting for a departure of that runway

One other question: On a 744 flight a couple of weeks back from Sydney we taxied down to 34L and held for sometime at the threshold. The Captain advised that two tyres on the main gear indicated low pressure as we were about to line up. Given it was two tyres indicating the low pressure they arranged for an engineer to come out to the aircraft to manually test the pressure. Sure enough both tyres were low. We ended up doing a very slow taxi back to the terminal for a quick change of both tyres. Are flat / deflated tyres a common occurrence?

 

[jb747]

Sydney weather (Friday 27/05) had strong westerlies for most of the afternoon with arrivals and most departures using RWY25. Arrivals and departures out of Sydney were delayed resulting in consequential delays across the network. I was delayed out of Melbourne for about 90 minutes back into Sydney due to flow control being in place. I noticed the SIN, BKK, MNL A330's got away off RWY25 however the long haul A380's and 744's still used RWY34L for departures. In conditions similar to today in Sydney when planning for one of the longer A380 / 744 flights and the max x/wind is above the limits do you have the option of taking on less fuel / freight, etc and depart off RWY25 planning via Perth (for splash and dash) to Dubai and similarly plan via Nadi for the trans pacific flights? Or do you plan as per normal and "wait" until the x-winds gets inside the maximum? I can remember a few years ago on the "old" QF107 sector to LAX and the x-wind was near the maximum with arrivals and departures using RWY25. We taxied down to the threshold of RWY34L and waited for 30+minutes at the threshold until the x-wind settled down and we could get into the sequence to allow a take-off from RWY35L as opposed to RWY25. I remember the PIC describing us an "orphan" as we were the only aircraft waiting for a departure of that runway.

It gets pretty messy, and shows the folly of only having one decent runway.

Crosswind limit (including gusts) for the 380 on take off is 35 knots. Crosswind limits will reduce if it's wet.

To use the shorter runway, you'd look at the performance with the worst wind (which would have been about 20 knots, i.e. the least wind). That gives a performance limit of about 550 tonnes. MTOW is 569 tonnes. Normally the weight on those flights (QF11) is low enough that you'd be able to use 25, but you'd need that wind to hang in there. If it were dropping below 20 knots, or swinging around, you'd not be able to guaranteed getting the needed performance. The Dubai flight is much closer to the max weight.

The decision to carry limited fuel would need to be made very early, well before the crew get involved. The aircraft are normally pre-fuelled to about 80% of the expected load as soon as they land. For a splash and dash that would be way too much.

Beyond that though, you now run into some interesting crew flight time limitations.

If a flight has issue (medical or anything else), the crew may extend the allowed duty. But, if the company decides to make a tech stop, it then becomes a planned operation, and the times have to fit the non extended limits...which they won't. So, if you really had to do this, you'd basically need to place a replacement crew at your landing point, and they could not have started their duty on the same day in Sydney...you'd need to have done it the previous day. Time travel would be useful.

 

[jb747]

The arrival trace is the same except that OQB's final turn to 300 deg was made a long way away from the usual final turn spot.
The final descent profile and final approach speeds were about the same except that other QF9 had a gradual speed decline from 190kts to 130kts by the time it reached 1000ft. OQB's long final approach started at similar altitude and speed but did not fall below 160kts by the time it descended to 1000ft.

Firstly you need to look at the first approach. It turns base at about the normal position and speed, but then does not descend. So, the "issue" happened just prior to that. The divergence is, of course, the lack of descent on base.

The next approach is longer, which is normal for anything that's non standard.

The aircraft need to be in landing configuration at the time of stabilised approach, so landing gear, flaps, slats would have been already configured for landing. Spoilers would be used to adjust aircraft speed on approach. What is the altitude minima for deployment of landing gear?

Gear goes out around 2,000 plus or minus a bit. The slats and flaps go out in stages. Normally 1 on downwind, 2 on base, 3 immediately after the gear, and 4 around 1,500'. Speed is normally reduced at each extension (to the green dot speed for the configuration). ATC do get involved with some speed management in Dubai, but 185-200k on base and 160 to around 4 nm is pretty normal. After 5 nm, you're looking for Vapp, which is around 135k.

The upshot is that most of the configuration happens much later in the approach than you think, with only the first two stages of slat/flat happening before glide slope intercept. Spoilers are not very effective once the slats/flaps are run, so they are rarely touched on finals, other than to arm them for landing. If you need drag you take the gear earlier. Speed is controlled with power.

My guess is that there was some reason the flight control surfaces could not be configured for a slower landing speed and the pilots needed the extra time to adjust to the new reality and therefore did another "racetrack" lap, and also started their final approach further out.

See, if you look closely you don't need to do much guessing at all. Like everything, there's a procedure to be completed, and you may even be able to carry out a reset, so it's normally good airmanship to discontinue any approach whilst you look at the options.

Would a problem with one of the flight control surfaces result in reversion to a more "direct" law?

No. The more likely outcome is a reversion to alternate law 1, in which case the autopilot is still available.

Interestingly VH-OQB has been unfortunate to be involved in 4 medical diversions - landing in DRW, PER, HNL, SYD.

They probably all have by now.

 

[Quickstatus]

So why did OQB land at a speed usually associated with a heavy aircraft?.