Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

JB Thank you for such a great thread and your informative responses. When will the pilots start training for the 787 and how long will it take to gain certification?

It's a different fleet to me, so I don't get any information about it. I'd expect the training people to start en masse around the end of the year. I wouldn't be surprised if some have already done the training, and some flying. The line people will start about about 3 months before the aircraft start arriving. I'd expect the course to be about 2 months for Boeing people 3-4 for Airbus.

 

[Gold60]

Fighter Pilot Training.

i once read somewhere that during the Battle of Britain, they were putting fighter pilots into action after only 10 hours, days, weeks of training - some really small amount.

Today, with our jets, what is the absolute bare minimum of time, under war or warlike conditions, the system would need to turn out a fighter pilot ready for day 1, with some sort of prospect of survival?

years ago i was in the ARES and our Reg instructors told us that they could turn out a basically trained level grunt in a considerably shorter period of time in war than what they take now. Can they do this type of thing these days with a fighter, or any sort, of pilot in the RAAF ?

 

[Foreigner]

Good read here about young pilot promoted to captain at EasyJet:


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...rlds-youngest-airline-captain-aged-26-easyjet

 

[Boris spatsky]

Fighter Pilot Training.

i once read somewhere that during the Battle of Britain, they were putting fighter pilots into action after only 10 hours, days, weeks of training - some really small amount.

Today, with our jets, what is the absolute bare minimum of time, under war or warlike conditions, the system would need to turn out a fighter pilot ready for day 1, with some sort of prospect of survival?

years ago i was in the ARES and our Reg instructors told us that they could turn out a basically trained level grunt in a considerably shorter period of time in war than what they take now. Can they do this type of thing these days with a fighter, or any sort, of pilot in the RAAF ?

It depends what you want them to do and what their background is - do you want to takeoff and land safely; or add air to ground in; or add air to air in; or actually know what they are doing?

If they had no flying experience, then a year might get you an individual that could takeoff and land and not kill themselves on a clear day in a Hornet. If they had already flown the PC9, then i would say 3 months. But don't expect them to be particularly effective in combat...

Even qualified fast jet pilots are fairly restricted as to what they can do when they graduate (there is a pilot category system that starts with D category and goes to A - unlike in the civilian world where a captain is a captain).

 

[Gold60]

Thanks Boris. So Australia would be well advised to have an ongoing system that tries to keep the flow of qualified pilots coming in peace for war. Just in case. ......

It depends what you want them to do and what their background is - do you want to takeoff and land safely; or add air to ground in; or add air to air in; or actually know what they are doing?

If they had no flying experience, then a year might get you an individual that could takeoff and land and not kill themselves on a clear day in a Hornet. If they had already flown the PC9, then i would say 3 months. But don't expect them to be particularly effective in combat...

Even qualified fast jet pilots are fairly restricted as to what they can do when they graduate (there is a pilot category system that starts with D category and goes to A - unlike in the civilian world where a captain is a captain).

 

[Boris spatsky]

Good read here about young pilot promoted to captain at EasyJet:


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...rlds-youngest-airline-captain-aged-26-easyjet

It's a very different model in those LCCs compared to aviation here in Oz with the seniority system. I personally think aptitude SHOULD come into it, unlike in Oz where it is purely time based.

If she has the skills and the required experience (which is not listed) then i am all for it - as she says, she has passed the same command course as every other easyjet captain.

I did note one article saying that if the UK military can make transport captains at 25, then why can't the airlines, but i disagree with that - the standard is significantly different and pilots are recruited using rigorous aptitude testing in the military, unlike (in my experience) the airlines...

 

[jb747]

i once read somewhere that during the Battle of Britain, they were putting fighter pilots into action after only 10 hours, days, weeks of training - some really small amount.

Today, with our jets, what is the absolute bare minimum of time, under war or warlike conditions, the system would need to turn out a fighter pilot ready for day 1, with some sort of prospect of survival?

I doubt that he'd have any chance of survival in under two years from scratch, and even then he'd be close to useless. The jet is far too valuable, and far too hard to replace, to shortcut the training.

 

[Boca68]

Fighter Pilot Training.

i once read somewhere that during the Battle of Britain, they were putting fighter pilots into action after only 10 hours, days, weeks of training - some really small amount.

Today, with our jets, what is the absolute bare minimum of time, under war or warlike conditions, the system would need to turn out a fighter pilot ready for day 1, with some sort of prospect of survival?

years ago i was in the ARES and our Reg instructors told us that they could turn out a basically trained level grunt in a considerably shorter period of time in war than what they take now. Can they do this type of thing these days with a fighter, or any sort, of pilot in the RAAF ?

Me, just being a poor student pilot, trying to achieve PPL eventually, but being a great lover of military history. Your analogy of the Battle of Britain pilot is not really relevant to todays environment.

As Boris and jb747 have said, it would take, in the normal course of things a good year or more to achieve satisfactory airmanship. But, not to single out the the air battle over Britain in the spring of 1940, but that type of rule, just thrown out the window. It was more about if you could achieve a very fundamental understanding of an aircraft and an ability not to crash it on take off.

In todays world of supersonic craft or even heavy lift aircraft or helo's. Most would say that there is no place for that type of flyer. But, if the same circumstances were repeated, then just maybe the rule book might be thrown out the window as it was in 1940. Maybe?

 

[jb747]

Me, just being a poor student pilot, trying to achieve PPL eventually, but being a great lover of military history. Your analogy of the Battle of Britain pilot is not really relevant to todays environment.

As Boris and jb747 have said, it would take, in the normal course of things a good year or more to achieve satisfactory airmanship. But, not to single out the the air battle over Britain in the spring of 1940, but that type of rule, just thrown out the window. It was more about if you could achieve a very fundamental understanding of an aircraft and an ability not to crash it on take off.

In todays world of supersonic craft or even heavy lift aircraft or helo's. Most would say that there is no place for that type of flyer. But, if the same circumstances were repeated, then just maybe the rule book might be thrown out the window as it was in 1940. Maybe?

You simply couldn't replace the aircraft, so it really doesn't matter how long the pilots take to train!

 

[Captain Halliday]

Optical illusions aplenty here, but what is the likely separation here?

Airbus flies four planes in formation for a 'family' display | Daily Mail Online

 

[Skyring]

You simply couldn't replace the aircraft, so it really doesn't matter how long the pilots take to train!

The Battle of Britain was another time, another circumstance:

* The battle was a national emergency. Lose this one, the Germans invade.
* The British were building aircraft faster than the Luftwaffe could shoot them down.
* RAF Fighter Command was running out of *pilots*. Killed, injured, or just so bloody tired they couldn't fly.
* They had other resources to draw upon. Navy, Coastal Command, a thriving tradition of civilian flying.
* Very likely that ten hours would be for someone already in uniform, already a pilot, learning the RAF's combat tactics, radio procedure etc. Is there a source for the quote.

Not a pilot, but I know my history.

 

[jb747]

Optical illusions aplenty here, but what is the likely separation here?

Airbus flies four planes in formation for a 'family' display | Daily Mail Online

The echelon shots look to be fairly classic formation separation. Call it half a wing span laterally, zero vertically. The diamond is 'same way, same day'...loose.

From the #2 (then #3, etc) position, move forward until the wing tip lines up with the coughpit. The trailing edge of the horizontal tail gives another line, and the intersection of the two would be a pretty good position.

 

[Gold60]

a quick Google search turned up this article: Battle of Britain pilots 'could not shoot straight' - Telegraph . Other articles said that some only received 10 hours flight training, but others did receive a lot more, and that as the war wore on (or ground on), they started losing pilots at a slower rate, thus they could take their time and be pickier in the pilot recruiting, and spend more time training them.

i am guessing/assuming the 10 hours bit was at the height of the BofB and only referred to some pilots (the unlucky ones ?). Still, even though they were in simpler technological times, ten flight hours doesn't sound like much - poor buggers.....

The Battle of Britain was another time, another circumstance:

* The battle was a national emergency. Lose this one, the Germans invade.
* The British were building aircraft faster than the Luftwaffe could shoot them down.
* RAF Fighter Command was running out of *pilots*. Killed, injured, or just so bloody tired they couldn't fly.
* They had other resources to draw upon. Navy, Coastal Command, a thriving tradition of civilian flying.
* Very likely that ten hours would be for someone already in uniform, already a pilot, learning the RAF's combat tactics, radio procedure etc. Is there a source for the quote.

Not a pilot, but I know my history.

 

[Quickstatus]

This thread is meant to be an "Ask the Pilot" rather than the usual thread commentary. So there should be a question to the pilots.

 

[anat0l]

Well, keeping in mind that the article is not to be commented on in the main, I've extracted two points from this piece of trash: Flight attendant confessions: things they want to tell you, but can’t

2. MORNING FLIGHTS ARE LESS TURBULENT
Quora user Anya revealed that when it comes to booking flights, the earlier in the day the better.
She said: “One of the things that flight attendants won’t tell you, is that morning flights are better because the air is less bumpy.
“Obviously, the airline wants you to book at any time of the day.
“There is also less chance to hit thunderstorm, as these tend to happen mostly in the afternoon.”

4. A SMOOTH LANDING DEPENDS ON THE WEATHER
A hostess confessed that it’s important that passengers stop judging pilots on how turbulent their landing is.
She said: “Landing in the rain can be bumpier, because the plane needs to touch the runway hard to avoid aquaplaning.
“So next time have a rough landing, keep in mind, that although pilots are usually judged by their landing skills, hard landing is necessary and a correct, safe way to land the machine.”

For #2, I believe that's pretty much BS. For #4, I agree - we should stop judging pilots for that, though I didn't know that wet weather may bring about a necessarily harder landing.

Any pilots want to add further comment?

 

[jb747]

Well, keeping in mind that the article is not to be commented on in the main, I've extracted two points from this piece of trash: Flight attendant confessions: things they want to tell you, but can’t


For #2, I believe that's pretty much BS. For #4, I agree - we should stop judging pilots for that, though I didn't know that wet weather may bring about a necessarily harder landing.

There is less mechanical turbulence in the early morning, as the heat of the day hasn't had a chance to warm up the land and give updrafts. On the other hand, the pilots are probably tired, and induce their own bumps.

A very smooth landing is not ideal on a wet runway, as it is more likely to lead to aquaplaning. But, it shouldn't be 'hard'.

 

[Boof1]

Hi JB & Boris,

Firstly thanks to you both for the efforts in this thread. Quick Question for JB if I may please:

In the A380 what is the differences in landing and approach speeds as well as other considerations when landing flapless?

Reason I ask is that a Qatar A380 went into LHR last weekend (Sunday 25th I think) flapless and was wondering what impact that has. The slats look to be out but no flaps. There is a photo in this thread: Qatar A380 flap failure Heathrow - Airliners.net

Thanks so much,
Boof

 

[jb747]

Firstly thanks to you both for the efforts in this thread. Quick Question for JB if I may please:

In the A380 what is the differences in landing and approach speeds as well as other considerations when landing flapless?

Reason I ask is that a Qatar A380 went into LHR last weekend (Sunday 25th I think) flapless and was wondering what impact that has. The slats look to be out but no flaps. There is a photo in this thread: Qatar A380 flap failure Heathrow - Airliners.net

At a landing weight of 375,000 kgs...

Normal approach speed would be 139 kts (Vref+5), and the distance required (low brakes, no reverse, unfactored) would be 1912 metres.

Flapless, approach speed is now 165 knots, and distance required (low brakes, full reverse, unfactored) is 2661 metres. You need to be very careful in the flare, as the approach pitch attitude would be in the order of 6-7º (vs 2.5-3º normally). The extra IAS will make the aircraft a bit more sensitive in pitch during the flare, and you need to be aware of the tail scrape risk.

The most likely cause would be a trip of the asymmetry protection system. Dual hydraulics failure would get you there as well, but in that case the gear doors would all be open, and the aircraft would not have been taxied.

 

[Boof1]

Flapless, approach speed is now 165 knots, and distance required (low brakes, full reverse, unfactored) is 2661 metres. You need to be very careful in the flare, as the approach pitch attitude would be in the order of 6-7º (vs 2.5-3º normally). The extra IAS will make the aircraft a bit more sensitive in pitch during the flare, and you need to be aware of the tail scrape risk.

Thank you JB for the detailed answer. You've covered everything and I really appreciate it.

I thought it amazing in that thread I linked to see the three photos of the QR, EY, and EK birds landing. The nose high attitude of the QR bird is very noticeable with no flaps (they were taken from a fixed webcam so a good comparison could be made).

Thanks again.

Regards,
Boof

 

[Captain Halliday]

Is a descent from 38,000ft to 9,800ft in around 8 minutes normal? The level off at 9,800 makes me think pressurisation problem.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA825/history/20160930/0400Z/YPDN/YPDN/tracklog