Ask The Pilot

[Boris spatsky]

Over the years I've done a whole bunch of YMML-YSSY, YSCB-YSSY, OMDB-YSSY and WSSS-YSSY sectors. Depending on the prevailing winds the approach and landing for aircraft arriving from the West would typically be onto RWY16R or RWY34L. On a few occasions over the last 4-6 weeks the Westerly arrivals have changed to have the aircraft (A330, 737, 717, Dash 8) over fly the airfield and join down wind for a landing onto either RWY16L or RWY34R. Unless I'm missing something I cannot think of a reason where somewhere would request RWY16L/34R where RWY16R/34L was available. I've always worked on the assumption the traffic flow from the Westerly direction would land onto RWY16R / RWY34L and traffic from the East would land onto RWY16L / RWY34R. I was on this mornings QF82 service from WSSS - YSSY. We arrived over head the field at 5:55pm (before curfew) and landed onto RWY16L at 06:05am and had a 15 minute taxi to the gate. Apart from operational requirements (like an A380 or 744) requiring a longer / wider runway what would be the reason for traffic from the West to be swapped across to RWY16L / RWY34R? Can you request a landing onto RWY16R / RWY34L even if their is no operational requirement (except it gets you to the gate earlier).

The flow from the SW on the RIVET STAR normally lands you on 16R or 34L, unless they can't fit you in, and at that point they will give you the other runway. You can get to it by going overhead and around to the east over water, or sometimes you fly the normal STAR and they vector you onto the other runway. They do this also off the ODALE STAR for the turboprops (which runs parallel to the RIVET STAR).

34R/16L (the third runway) was limited to B767 size aircraft for years, but that was opened up to 777 and 787/A330 recently to improve traffic flow.

I have never asked for 16L/34R as it always delays you compared to landing on the main runway. You can request landing on the main runway even without an operational reason (REX seems to do this a lot) but they will only do it if the flow allows.

I have also noticed that when RWY34L / R is being used aircraft having landed on RWY34R and taxiing back to the terminal have to "give way" to aircraft landing onto RWY34L and using one of the high speed run off exits to taxi to the domestic side of the airfield. Who advises the taxiing aircraft they need to hold short of a taxiway for another aircraft landing off 34L? I would imagine this would be tough to manage as the landing aircraft would have to commit to exiting the runway at a particular taxiway... Thanks in advance.

It is standard for aircraft to hold short of B8 going northbound to give way to the traffic coming off the runway from the high speed. ATC will generally tell you to do that anyway. All aircraft landing on the main runway have to take the high speed (B7 or B9) due to runway occupancy time limitations (ie it is mandated) so all the jets will come off there in most instances unless they have advised tower otherwise. It's not difficult to manage as it is a standard procedure at Sydney.

 

[Awesom Andy]

It is standard for aircraft to hold short of B8 going northbound to give way to the traffic coming off the runway from the high speed. ATC will generally tell you to do that anyway. All aircraft landing on the main runway have to take the high speed (B7 or B9) due to runway occupancy time limitations (ie it is mandated) so all the jets will come off there in most instances unless they have advised tower otherwise. It's not difficult to manage as it is a standard procedure at Sydney.

I presume international ops would use A2/A4?

 

[lastrow]

As seen on YouTube landing an aircraft in a high cross wind looks pretty scary. The flight path has the aircraft crabbing as it approaches the runway sometimes it appears to be over 30 degrees to the centreline. Then as the aircraft makes contact with the tarmac it is miraculously straightened up. How is this done. Is every landing a sucess or have there been run offs?

 

[Boris spatsky]

I presume international ops would use A2/A4?

Yes but there is not normally any conflicting taxiing traffic on that side of the runway like there is on the domestic side

 

[jb747]

JB - In relation to the 747 landing at OOL the other morning. I know you've spoken a bit about diversions before but I wonder if you can give insight into this one. I assume OOL would have been a last resort for a 747 crew given they have never previously gone there before. Would that be the case? I assume the fog developed after their last point of diversion on route. In this case would they have had the resources to make it to Sydney and what if the OOL runway hadn't been extended and they had gone past Noumea and arrived in BNE without enough juice to divert but without the ability to get in with fog?

I guess diversions due to fog are the really difficult ones to predict too because you can't know how long it will take to lift and thus how long you are going to have to sit on the ground. The crew must have been seriously close to running out of hours.

I didn't follow what happened on the day, so I'm not sure of any details. The Captain would have been very familiar with Coolangatta in its shorter configuration, as he'd been a 767 Captain, and so would have been there many times.

The runway is acceptable, and would have been listed as an alternate. Not perhaps the most desirable, but sometimes that's how it is.

 

[jb747]

As seen on YouTube landing an aircraft in a high cross wind looks pretty scary. The flight path has the aircraft crabbing as it approaches the runway sometimes it appears to be over 30 degrees to the centreline. Then as the aircraft makes contact with the tarmac it is miraculously straightened up. How is this done. Is every landing a sucess or have there been run offs?

Crosswind landings......well sometimes I'm sh** hot, and sometimes sh** house.

30º is beyond any limits that might exist. About 15º is more reasonable (but still at the limits). Some aircraft (Boeing) can be landed with the drift intact, which makes life much easier. You fix the heading after landing.

The idea is to flare, gently push out the drift with rudder, and immediately touch down. Reality is that you'll only occasionally get that all timed correctly, so you simply deal with whatever you have.

Strong crosswinds are difficult... But, I recall one woman in Brisbane who had a go at me over my landing in a 38 knot crosswind. I was pleased with the outcome. She wasn't. I asked how her last landing was....

 

[jb747]

I presume international ops would use A2/A4?

You guys amaze me. I had to look up those taxiways. I just take whatever is appropriate.

 

[Mattg]

I flew on QF28 SCL-SYD yesterday. The captain announced at the start of the flight that we would be flying as far as 71 degrees south. He also mentioned that this was as far south as we were "allowed" to go.

I was just wondering why there might be a limit of 71 degrees south?

 

[juddles]

I flew on QF28 SCL-SYD yesterday. The captain announced at the start of the flight that we would be flying as far as 71 degrees south. He also mentioned that this was as far south as we were "allowed" to go.

I was just wondering why there might be a limit of 71 degrees south?

Your question reminds me of one I forgot to ask (which maybe related due to fuel temps??): Is there any significant difference in air temperatures at usual cruising altitudes around the globe?

 

[jb747]

I flew on QF28 SCL-SYD yesterday. The captain announced at the start of the flight that we would be flying as far as 71 degrees south. He also mentioned that this was as far south as we were "allowed" to go.

I was just wondering why there might be a limit of 71 degrees south?

There are lots of limitations at the higher latitudes. The figure at which they start to apply varies a bit, depending upon the aircraft, but around 73-78º north, and about 60º south, is where you'll encounter what is called the polar zones. CASA (and the other authorities) all have rules for operation in these areas.

A big issue is that the magnetic and true poles are not in the same place. Aircraft are normally flown using magnetic headings and tracks, which will be corrected for variation. Variation is the difference (in degrees) between magnetic and true at any given point. The variation changes relatively slowly as you move, and is easy to keep track of. In polar regions that's no longer the case, and the actual variation can be a large figure. Taken to the extreme, magnetic north and true north could be in opposite directions.

Aircraft operating in these regions have to be operated using true north as their heading reference. Not all aircraft will gracefully offer that change. IRUs can also have latitude limitations.

Plus, it's just too far from anywhere warm.

 

[jb747]

Your question reminds me of one I forgot to ask (which maybe related due to fuel temps??): Is there any significant difference in air temperatures at usual cruising altitudes around the globe?

The atmosphere cools at about 2º per thousand feet, until it reaches the tropopause. From that point, it's pretty much the same temperature for a while (well above where airliners fly), until it eventually starts to heat up again. The height of the tropopause varies, from a low around FL300 up to about FL500. Basically it's low where it's cold on the ground, and higher where it's hot. The temperature above is generally in the region of -56º. So I guess the answer is that it's going to be colder, lower, but the actual extreme temperatures won't vary all that much.

Having said that, things do vary day to day. The coldest that I've ever seen was about at about 45-50º north, over China and the old USSR (aka the 'stans). On that day it was approaching the absolute temperature limit of the aircraft, and we ultimately had to descend to try to control the fuel temperature. It was around -70º. The following day, BA 38 (a 777) flew the same route, and had a fuel icing induced double engine failure during approach.

 

[Boris spatsky]

You guys amaze me. I had to look up those taxiways. I just take whatever is appropriate.

ATC get pretty upset nowadays for narrow bodies if you don't take the designated high speed taxiway for ROT purposes. I like keeping them happy!

 

[petercr]

The following day, BA 38 (a 777) flew the same route, and had a fuel icing induced double engine failure during approach.

The was the one the decided to unintentionally land short at LHR wasn't it? (saw it mentioned on an ep of Air Crash Investigations last night)

 

[Himeno]

The was the one the decided to unintentionally land short at LHR wasn't it? (saw it mentioned on an ep of Air Crash Investigations last night)

Yep. Ice in the fuel blocked flow to the engines, causing total power loss on final approach. Crew reduced flaps slightly to extend the glide past the airport perimeter before sliding along the grass just sort of 27L.

The NTSB initially thought that might have been the cause of OZ214.

 

[jb747]

The was the one the decided to unintentionally land short at LHR wasn't it? (saw it mentioned on an ep of Air Crash Investigations last night)

I was there on the day, and departed that evening. A weird sight, taxiing past a mostly intact 777 just off the approach end of the runway.

In many ways it was appallingly handled by the airline. They had no understanding of the stresses they were placing the crew under, and provided bugger all support. In particular, they did nothing to stop a whisper campaign against the Captain amongst the more ignorant.

I can guarantee that most pilots, faced with no power at 500 feet, wouldn't have even thought of the flaps until it was too late. They didn't make much difference, about 50 metres, but it meant that they didn't hit the approach lights.

 

[por930]

I was there on the day, and departed that evening. A weird sight, taxiing past a mostly intact 777 just off the approach end of the runway.

In many ways it was appallingly handled by the airline. They had no understanding of the stresses they were placing the crew under, and provided bugger all support. In particular, they did nothing to stop a whisper campaign against the Captain amongst the more ignorant.

I can guarantee that most pilots, faced with no power at 500 feet, wouldn't have even thought of the flaps until it was too late. They didn't make much difference, about 50 metres, but it meant that they didn't hit the approach lights.

It was a sad affair for the pilot. The captain said, " it was my decision to reveal that the first officer was flying the aircraft when the problem occurred and that I had to sort it out. The whispers were that the FO "had" to land the aircraft due to the captains inaction....

JB In a situation like this, on approach the Captain was flying. He had previously briefed the FO about the approach, and the FO was to carry out the actual landing. With the FO now the pilot flying on short final when the problem developed, If you had not mentioned in your briefing about such an occurrence, would you(captain) expect to take over at such short notice, or leave it up to your FO, as you considered he had it in hand and you could not add anything better to the situation other than being watchful, still trying to remedy the problem, handling the radios, and the flaps(which the PNF would do) Possibly, Standard Operating Procedures for BA, may have a rule for emergencies who must be the pilot flying in such a circumstance.

See Hero pilot Peter Burkill 'forced out of BA' after saving jet rejoins firm | Daily Mail Online
and if interested.
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/1-2010-boeing-777-236er-g-ymmm-17-january-2008

 

[jb747]

It was a sad affair for the pilot. The captain said, " it was my decision to reveal that the first officer was flying the aircraft when the problem occurred and that I had to sort it out. The whispers were that the FO "had" to land the aircraft due to the captains inaction....

JB In a situation like this, on approach the Captain was flying. He had previously briefed the FO about the approach, and the FO was to carry out the actual landing. With the FO now the pilot flying on short final when the problem developed, If you had not mentioned in your briefing about such an occurrence, would you(captain) expect to take over at such short notice, or leave it up to your FO, as you considered he had it in hand and you could not add anything better to the situation other than being watchful, still trying to remedy the problem, handling the radios, and the flaps(which the PNF would do) Possibly, Standard Operating Procedures for BA, may have a rule for emergencies who must be the pilot flying in such a circumstance.

As soon as you're in an emergency situation, all rules, SOPs, etc, are open to any changes you feel like making. Some of the checklists even contain wording to the effect that they don't necessarily apply in some cases...it's up to you to decide when.

In this case the Captain felt that it would be best if he tried to sort things out whilst leaving the FO to fly. He made one very important decision (to retract the flaps a stage), and if he'd loaded himself up even more by trying to do the flying I doubt that he would have thought of it. I see nothing wrong with what he did.

In training, about the only time the Captain has to take over is for an abort. He's the only one who makes that decision, and the 'stopping' call also effects 'taking over'. With an engine failure on take off, the general plan is to leave it with the FO (if he happens to be flying) unless something else forces you to take over. They all expect to continue flying it. The landing will be done by the Captain, but nothing forces you to take over at the start of any event. The only one I've had that was close to this (at 1,000'), had me handing over to the FO after I'd done the initial sorting out, to unload myself.

For what it's worth, when QF30 went bang, I left Bernie flying the aircraft until about 10-15 minutes after the initial event. He knew how to do the flying, and it left me to see if I could sort anything out, and to come up with a plan for whatever we were doing next.

In the BA case, the fact that he retracted the flaps proves that he did not freeze. I'm not sure that I'd have thought of it.

 

[juddles]

... I'm not sure that I'd have thought of it....

This sort of honesty and self-examination to improve, is what makes, IMHO, our pilots so different

 

[petercr]

As soon as you're in an emergency situation, all rules, SOPs, etc, are open to any changes you feel like making. Some of the checklists even contain wording to the effect that they don't necessarily apply in some cases...it's up to you to decide when.

In this case the Captain felt that it would be best if he tried to sort things out whilst leaving the FO to fly. He made one very important decision (to retract the flaps a stage), and if he'd loaded himself up even more by trying to do the flying I doubt that he would have thought of it. I see nothing wrong with what he did.
.

JB, is this where CRM training shows its worth for the crew? (speaking of that on the ep of Air Crash the other night, the NTSB guy they had on said the introduction of CRM reduced the number of coughpit related accidents on major airlines in America significantly)

 

[jb747]

JB, is this where CRM training shows its worth for the crew? (speaking of that on the ep of Air Crash the other night, the NTSB guy they had on said the introduction of CRM reduced the number of coughpit related accidents on major airlines in America significantly)

It would be a part of it. CRM, when originally introduced, was a means of allowing the more timid to speak up, and pushed the louder to listen. Over the years, it has morphed somewhat.

CRM is, in part, about using all of the resources available to you. Other crew, their knowledge and skills, are part of that resource pool.