Ask The Pilot

[michaelidau]

Roughly how many pilots would be employed/qualified for an airline on aircraft with limited numbers? Eg. Virgin's 2x A320 or in history Ansett's 2x B747
With larger numbers it would appear to be relatively easy to account for annual leave and sick days, but with only 2 aircraft it appears to me that they would have to be way more than i would expect to normally to handle unexpected issues.

 

[jb747]

Roughly how many pilots would be employed/qualified for an airline on aircraft with limited numbers? Eg. Virgin's 2x A320 or in history Ansett's 2x B747
With larger numbers it would appear to be relatively easy to account for annual leave and sick days, but with only 2 aircraft it appears to me that they would have to be way more than i would expect to normally to handle unexpected issues.

The number will vary depending upon the usage of the aircraft. Short haul, long haul or even ultra long, will all change the requirements. We have approximately 100 Captains for the A380s. Remove the management and training people from the list, and you end up with around 90 to do the day to day flying. There are 12 aircraft, and with one out for maintenance, we'd probably have about 11 available most of the time. So, that gives you a bit over 8 line Captains per aircraft. Utilisation with that number has us approaching maximum legal hours quite regularly, so it's a pretty reasonable number.

With a larger fleet it might reduce slightly. I'm not sure how ultra long haul will affect things, but I suspect it will increase the number needed (recovery time and fatigue will be huge issues). A very small fleet is also likely to throw up a need for slightly higher numbers. The range of 7 to 10 would probably cover everything.

Crew structure affects overall numbers. We use SOs for the cruise, but other airlines may choose to carry extra FOs or even Captains. Again looking at the A380, we have fewer FOs than Captains because they aren't generally used in management or training (there are some exceptions). SOs are not always carried. There are roughly 14 departures per day (around the network), of which 8 are 4 man crews, 2 are 3 man, and 4 are 2 man, which would give a daily need for 14 Capt, 14 FO, and 18 SO, and gives an idea of the approximate ratio of people in each rank. Some airlines don't use SOs, but crew long flights with extra Captains or FOs, so you can see how that would change things.

 

[eric2011]

Apologies if this has been asked before :
It has always puzzled me that on US domestic flights there is no requirement to have the window shades up. In fact most flights have them all down upon boarding and they stay that way.
I assumed that this was due to it not being a requirement of US authorities and wondered if the pilots here thought it could potentially be a safety issue with passengers having no visual of the outside in the event of an emergency ?

Ive only flown around the bottom half of the country in the hotter climates, and have been under the impression that they are down to help the interiors to remain cool while on the ground, therefore saving cooling costs and they just don't get put up by pax

 

[RooFlyer]

While waiting for a QF flight at MEL domestic yesterday, I heard announcements from an adjacent gate where there was apparently some issue with the aircraft; the waiting pax were advised of delays periodically while the issue was assessed. Eventually it was announced that the flight was cancelled. A bit of an explanation of the issue was given and ended with " ... so the Captain and First Officer have decided that the flight would (or should) be cancelled."

This last bit surprised me, as I would have thought the ultimate decision to cancel a flight (rather than flying another aircraft) would be decided by 'operations' and I guessed that the announcer was just using a bit of verbal shorthand.

In domestic and/or international ops, what are the 'mechanics' of deciding an aircraft is unserviceable (ie Engineer just reports 'its u/s' and that's it, or he/she reports an opinion to Captain and he/she decides; maybe the engineer's report is checked against a standard list of 'go/no-go' issues and that decidedes etc).

If a particular aircraft is unserviceable, what are then the mechanics for deciding that the flight would be outright cancelled, or flown with a substitute aircraft, later on? Do the Captain and FO have any say?

 

[jb747]

While waiting for a QF flight at MEL domestic yesterday, I heard announcements from an adjacent gate where there was apparently some issue with the aircraft; the waiting pax were advised of delays periodically while the issue was assessed. Eventually it was announced that the flight was cancelled. A bit of an explanation of the issue was given and ended with " ... so the Captain and First Officer have decided that the flight would (or should) be cancelled."

This last bit surprised me, as I would have thought the ultimate decision to cancel a flight (rather than flying another aircraft) would be decided by 'operations' and I guessed that the announcer was just using a bit of verbal shorthand.

In domestic and/or international ops, what are the 'mechanics' of deciding an aircraft is unserviceable (ie Engineer just reports 'its u/s' and that's it, or he/she reports an opinion to Captain and he/she decides; maybe the engineer's report is checked against a standard list of 'go/no-go' issues and that decidedes etc).

If a particular aircraft is unserviceable, what are then the mechanics for deciding that the flight would be outright cancelled, or flown with a substitute aircraft, later on? Do the Captain and FO have any say?

The FO doesn't specifically have any say, though any decent Captain will listen to him. Engineering will decide whether they can sign an aircraft out. Day to day stuff is just done by the LAME. Application of an MEL firstly requires that it exists in the book....there are very specific lists of what can be 'MELed', and if it isn't mentioned, then it can't be. MELs must be accepted by the Captain. Beyond that, for something unusual, it may be possible to have an 'authority to proceed' issued. That involves engineering at a much higher level, and also CASA. And it too must be accepted by the Captain.

Lots of MELs (etc) have operational restrictions and procedures attached to them. Any of those may be cause for the Captain to reject their application. A couple of extreme cases...it's possible for an aircraft to the MELed for flight in VMC (visual met conditions) only...which is a fat lot of use in an airliner. Similarly, 'no icing conditions' could be a condition, but they always exist once you climb a bit, no matter how hot it is on the ground. Some Captains have their own rules, often learnt from bitter experience. I will not accept MELs relating to IRUs or ADCs (inertials or air data computers).

Once the Captain has rejected an aircraft, operations can find another Captain, or they can find another aircraft. The repercussions of going with the former, and having a subsequent issue, make it an unlikely choice.

 

[Quickstatus]

I will not accept MELs relating to IRUs or ADCs (inertials or air data computers).

Are you referring to the VH-QPA uncommanded manoeuvres?

 

[petercr]

JB, can you explain the acronym MEL (assuming not as in Tullamarine)? I've googled and there's a few potential answers there...

Thanks...

 

[straitman]

JB, can you explain the acronym MEL (assuming not as in Tullamarine)? I've googled and there's a few potential answers there...

Thanks...

Minimum Equipment List
It refers to items that are a minimum requirement for flight.

 

[jb747]

Are you referring to the VH-QPA uncommanded manoeuvres?

No.

The aircraft have three air data computers, and the MELs can allow departure with one unserviceable.

If you subsequently lose another ADC, or even a part of the system related to it, the aircraft will drop into alternate law II. It will almost certainly be out of trim, and you won't have any ability to fix it. You will lose all autopilots. Depending upon the exact failure mode, it's possible that only one pilot (not necessarily the Captain) will have air data presented to him.

Airbus (and Boeing for that matter) will say that the odds are extremely low, and so it should be ok for a limited time. My experience of odds (and this particular failure) is that they are 100%.

 

[jb747]

JB, can you explain the acronym MEL (assuming not as in Tullamarine)? I've googled and there's a few potential answers there...

Minimum equipment list. It's a huge book, that lists everything that is allowed to wrong with an aircraft, and the conditions under which it may still be allowed to fly.

 

[Cynicor]

Minimum equipment list. It's a huge book, that lists everything that is allowed to wrong with an aircraft, and the conditions under which it may still be allowed to fly.

Is it still a book, or on an app now?

 

[jb747]

Is it still a book, or on an app now?

It exists in multiple forms. We use a Windows app, but it's also on our iPads. And there's a PDF.

 

[Boris spatsky]

Is it still a book, or on an app now?

Ours is a book, and also in pdf on ipad. The book always overrides the ipad if there is any doubt.

 

[D747]

Do parallel but offset runways, like Changi, solve separation issues for take off and landing?

 

[jb747]

Do parallel but offset runways, like Changi, solve separation issues for take off and landing?

I don't think that the offset makes much difference. Vertically, that would make about 100' difference. The runways at Singapore are widely spaced...well over a km apart. There aren't any issues with parallel operations there, and no silly PRM style procedures are needed. Like Dubai, they normally use one runway for take off, and the other for landing (the eastern most runway is reserved for military use). Most importantly, the main pair of runways are basically the same length, so we aren't forced by performance issues to pick one over the other.

 

[lastrow]

I read in a well respected aviation magazine that the 737 has a tendancy to pitch up when full power is applied to the engines during level flight. The effect can apparently be quite severe resulting in a quite a steep angle unless compensated by flight control. Can you comment on this please?

 

[flychrisfly]

Can you talk about trim please. I had always understood or assumed trim to relate to the cancelation of a moment that would cause a plane to roll but is this the only axis that needs trimming?

 

[jb747]

I read in a well respected aviation magazine that the 737 has a tendancy to pitch up when full power is applied to the engines during level flight. The effect can apparently be quite severe resulting in a quite a steep angle unless compensated by flight control. Can you comment on this please?

There will be more discussion of trim in the next answer. But, to answer your question, yes it will pitch up very strongly. So does every aircraft with underslung engines. It's not a surprise, you know it will do so, and the effect is used by pilots when initiating go arounds.

 

[Melburnian1]

One of our esteemed contributors recently commented that one of the ways ATC occasionally controls flights at SYD, Mode 4 as it has been called by Airservices Australia, was 'dangerous'.

If so, bearing in mind that there are rules around so-called 'protected industrial action' and also that industrial associations in the aviation industry vary in percentage of coverage of employees (and therefore in strength) and that many tech crew staff are foreigners working for foreign airlines, why:

(a) haven't the airlines said 'we want a ban on this 'mode' because it triggers two many 'collision avoidance' warnings in coughpits' and
(b) it puts the safety of our staff and our passengers in at least some jeopardy - otherwise it could not be called 'dangerous'
noting that
(c) while diversions are annoying and financially costly, incidents resulting from unsafe work practices are even more 'costly' in terms of loss of reputation, not to mention possible suits encouraged by 'class action' solicitors

It may be that it is not practical to avoid occasional use of Mode 4 given the huge delays and diversions such a ban might create (with their own safety-related risks at other airports, perhaps) but it worries me that an esteemed contributor - who like most of his ilk hopefully does not exaggerate - states that this modus operandi is 'dangerous'.

 

[Boris spatsky]

I had to google Mode 4 to work out what you were discussing. It is essentially arrivals on 34L and departures on 16L. So when you takeoff, you may have an aircraft landing directly opposite you on the parallel runway coming towards you. They only do it in low wind on clear days from my experience. I have personally never had an issue with it. The departure turns you overwater immediately, and even if you had an emergency requiring going straight ahead, i don't think it would be a significant issue. The biggest issue might just be the passengers looking out the window and seeing a plane go by in the opposite direction!

Oh and i have never had a Resolution Advisory from 'Mode 4'. Most systems are inhibited below 1000 feet or so.