Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

According to this, we're just babes in the woods...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Long_(aviator)

 

[Franky]

According to this, we're just babes in the woods...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Long_(aviator)

The fact that he avoided all those poles and wires for so long is a feat in itself..

 

[Boris spatsky]

According to this, we're just babes in the woods...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Long_(aviator)

Unbelievable... not sure flying would be fun anymore after 65,000!

 

[serfty]

Crosswinds...

I was coming in to MEL on EK404 from SIN on Monday morning.

Prevailing South Westerly winds, somewhat strong with a few light showers... the runway was a little damp. We were landing on 16.

Emirates make available for PAX views from a choice three cameras on their A388's; one from from the tail (many QF PAX would be familiar), one looking straight down from the belly and one in the nose looking straight ahead. The latter gives a narrower view (perhaps more detailed) than the tail camera while both point directly ahead and so indicate the orientation of the fuselage.

I was watching the "nose cam" as we came down through the light cloud on final approach. I was surprised that all that was revealed were the paddocks and small 'hills' of the area to the West of MEL; there was no sight of the aerodrome, let alone any evidence of the "running rabbit" or runway.

Switching back to the tail cam, I could see the place well of to the left - I realised we had a substantial crosswind and the aircraft was pointing toward Geelong, perhaps further West. I switched back to the nose camera and watched as eventually the running rabbit came into view from the left.

Anyway, this was sufficiently unusual for that I took out my smartphone and proceeded to record the nose cam view of the last minute of approach and the subsequent landing.

It seemed to me the person piloting the craft was having to work at it; they would not have been looking straight ahead.

The recording is rather poor quality, especially after landing due to light spray. At all times the centre of the screen indicates where the nose was pointing. There's no much really after 1:40 worth watching.

During the approach it seemed the wind was gusting a fair amount. There were a some lurches as endeavours to keep/put the craft on the centre line before and after touchdown.

Anyway, is a crosswind as strong as this normal for MEL and how much stronger would it need to be before diversions might be considered? I do know that most traffic was using 27.

[video=youtube_share;rjFLKd0FZz4]https://youtu.be/rjFLKd0FZz4[/video]

 

[Milboo]

I don't know what was going on in Sydney on the day, but perhaps a go-around forced by weather, with the orbit a case of waiting for something to resolve itself at the airport. If the aircraft had a problem, you'd go out to sea, and sort it out there...out of ATC's way.

Landing about 7pm? That's likely to be around the time we had the worst of the change come through with gusty winds and big drop in temperature and rain.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Crosswinds...

Anyway, is a crosswind as strong as this normal for MEL and how much stronger would it need to be before diversions might be considered? I do know that most traffic was using 27.

Wind speed at the time of landing on Monday morning around 09:00 was 33km/h or 18kts from the SW so not all of it would have been crosswind.

While it seems that there was a large crab angle (let's call it 15kts for this example) it is not a lot of crosswind. The effect here is being dramatised by the A380's large tail. I'm not 100% sure on the maximum crosswind for the A380 (also depends on the operator's limitations) but it is usually at least double that (30kts of direct crosswind), plus there are other factors such as, runway conditions (dry/damp) on both runways, weight for runway 27 to be used and therefore more into wind, etc, before a diversion would be needed.

 

[AviatorInsight]

According to this, we're just babes in the woods...

Unbelievable... not sure flying would be fun anymore after 65,000!

I don't know about you guys, but my goal is to finish my career with the least amount of hours I can do! This way I know I have been home with my family for the important birthdays, christmas', and watching the kids grow up.

 

[Skyring]

In a FB thread commenting on the beauty (or otherwise) of the A380, someone noted that it seemed as if it and similar 4-engine planes were slower on takeoff than the twins. Is this true at all?

 

[Quickstatus]

http://avherald.com/h?article=4a4ded31&opt=0
Does TOGA power cause an aircraft to pitch up?

 

[AviatorInsight]

Accident: Aerolineas B738 at Bariloche on Feb 13th 2017, tail strike on go-around
Does TOGA power cause an aircraft to pitch up?

Yes. Any aircraft with underslung engines will cause a pitch up moment with the application of thrust.

 

[casanovawa]

If its not privileged information would a pilot for Qantas be able to find out what the most hours any Qantas pilot has ever flown? If that is of any interest?

Would they capture anything like that, hours just on Qantas planes or would they not distinguish if someone came in with hours from service on a previous airline?

 

[jb747]

The fact that he avoided all those poles and wires for so long is a feat in itself..

I don't know that he necessarily missed the 'poles and wires'. In that time frame, I expect that there was more than one unintentional landing.

Unbelievable... not sure flying would be fun anymore after 65,000!

I wonder how many Super Cubs he went through?

 

[jb747]

If its not privileged information would a pilot for Qantas be able to find out what the most hours any Qantas pilot has ever flown? If that is of any interest?

Would they capture anything like that, hours just on Qantas planes or would they not distinguish if someone came in with hours from service on a previous airline?

The company records hours, but to be honest, outside of keeping legal, they have no interest in them. Coming from a previous airline/military, they simply start your records with whatever you already had. They adjust military hours upwards by 10 minutes per flight, as the military record airborne time only, whilst the civil world records chock to chock.

Information about other pilots is not available, for obvious reasons. Around 25,000 hours at retirement is common, but I expect a couple have gotten past 30. I have roughly 21,500, and will retire with about 23,000.

 

[jb747]

Crosswinds...

I was coming in to MEL on EK404 from SIN on Monday morning.

Prevailing South Westerly winds, somewhat strong with a few light showers... the runway was a little damp. We were landing on 16.

Emirates make available for PAX views from a choice three cameras on their A388's; one from from the tail (many QF PAX would be familiar), one looking straight down from the belly and one in the nose looking straight ahead. The latter gives a narrower view (perhaps more detailed) than the tail camera while both point directly ahead and so indicate the orientation of the fuselage.

I was watching the "nose cam" as we came down through the light cloud on final approach. I was surprised that all that was revealed were the paddocks and small 'hills' of the area to the West of MEL; there was no sight of the aerodrome, let alone any evidence of the "running rabbit" or runway.

Switching back to the tail cam, I could see the place well of to the left - I realised we had a substantial crosswind and the aircraft was pointing toward Geelong, perhaps further West. I switched back to the nose camera and watched as eventually the running rabbit came into view from the left.

Anyway, this was sufficiently unusual for that I took out my smartphone and proceeded to record the nose cam view of the last minute of approach and the subsequent landing.

There really isn't all that much crosswind at play here. Perhaps 15 knots at touchdown, and a bit more earlier.

It seemed to me the person piloting the craft was having to work at it; they would not have been looking straight ahead.

Steady crosswinds are quite straightforward. Gusty ones are harder work, as you have to keep changing your aim point. When you flare, and squeeze it straight, you'll pivot the aircraft around a point forward of the main gear, so the pilot's aim point has to be on the upwind side of the runway...you should pivot back on to the centreline during the flare. The A380 helps you with gusty crosswinds, as it sees the change as sideslip, and automatically uses rudder to remove it. It feels odd at first, as there can be substantial yaw, without any pilot input, but the effect is to keep the aircraft tracking towards the correct spot. Interestingly, that's just a side effect of the FBW...it just doesn't like sideslip.

During the approach it seemed the wind was gusting a fair amount. There were a some lurches as endeavours to keep/put the craft on the centre line before and after touchdown.

The inflight motion is pretty benign. The only lurch is at touchdown, where he doesn't seem to have cancelled the drift at all, so I think it's actually landed a bit earlier than he wanted.

Anyway, is a crosswind as strong as this normal for MEL and how much stronger would it need to be before diversions might be considered? I do know that most traffic was using 27.

One of the things we comment on, virtually every time that we arrive in Melbourne, is the fact that ATC never seem to learn that A380s won't land on 27 unless the crosswind on 16/34 is over 25 knots. For us, 27 is simply short. Yes, we could land there, but you'd look a bloody dill if you got it wrong, with a nice big runway sitting there that you didn't use. I will always take a crosswind over a runway of marginal length.

The crosswind limits vary with all sorts of factors. Wet. Dry. Takeoff. Landing. Low vis. The basic A380 limits are 35 knots of crosswind for takeoff, and 40 for landing. Think about it...that's going sideways at 80 kph. The 767 was 38 knots, and the 747 35 knots.

One of the hardest types of crosswind to handle, is the one that swaps sides in the flare. Another thing to ponder.

Generally what you'll see at Melbourne will be a very strong wind from the west at about 3,000', reducing as you approach the ground. The strongest I've ever seen was in Hong Kong, where we had almost 100 knots (of crosswind) at about 4,000', which reduced linearly to about 35 knots at touchdown. Needless to say, the runway wasn't in the front windows at all. I had a go around and diversion in London, where the crosswind was about 70 knots at 3,000'. It reduced to about 30 on the ground, but it was also wet, and that exceeded the wet limit. I recall a number of passengers having a go at me because the usual suspects had all landed. They simply treat Boeing limits differently, because their line pilots are 'at least as good as Boeing test pilots'. In a alternate dimension perhaps.

 

[serfty]

There really isn't all that much crosswind at play here. Perhaps 15 knots at touchdown, and a bit more earlier. ...

Ok, so just a run of the mill landing including the prevailing winds.

Thanks for your comments - I guess I may be used to the broader view of the tail cam (being the only option on Qantas) - it surprised me when the airport was not initially in view.

 

[Quickstatus]

Generally what you'll see at Melbourne will be a very strong wind from the west at about 3,000', reducing as you approach the ground. The strongest I've ever seen was in Hong Kong, where we had almost 100 knots (of crosswind) at about 4,000', which reduced linearly to about 35 knots at touchdown. Needless to say, the runway wasn't in the front windows at all. I had a go around and diversion in London, where the crosswind was about 70 knots at 3,000'. It reduced to about 30 on the ground, but it was also wet, and that exceeded the wet limit. I recall a number of passengers having a go at me because the usual suspects had all landed. They simply treat Boeing limits differently, because their line pilots are 'at least as good as Boeing test pilots'. In a alternate dimension perhaps.

CI642? An example?

 

[opusman]

One of the things we comment on, virtually every time that we arrive in Melbourne, is the fact that ATC never seem to learn that A380s won't land on 27 unless the crosswind on 16/34 is over 25 knots. For us, 27 is simply short. Yes, we could land there, but you'd look a bloody dill if you got it wrong, with a nice big runway sitting there that you didn't use. I will always take a crosswind over a runway of marginal length.

The crosswind limits vary with all sorts of factors. Wet. Dry. Takeoff. Landing. Low vis. The basic A380 limits are 35 knots of crosswind for takeoff, and 40 for landing. Think about it...that's going sideways at 80 kph. The 767 was 38 knots, and the 747 35 knots.

Last night on EK407 we had two goes at landing at Melbourne, presumably on 16/34 first but the tailwind was too strong, and then again on 09/27 but presumably a too-strong tailwind translates into a too-strong crosswind as well?

Ended up going up to Sydney to re-fuel and coming back again.

 

[jb747]

Last night on EK407 we had two goes at landing at Melbourne, presumably on 16/34 first but the tailwind was too strong, and then again on 09/27 but presumably a too-strong tailwind translates into a too-strong crosswind as well?

Ended up going up to Sydney to re-fuel and coming back again.

It actually did an approach to 34, went around from that, and then did an approach to 16. Diverted to Sydney after going around from that one. A QF 737 that went around from 34 slightly after EK, did a second approach to 27 and landed.

I departed Tullamarine on Rex at about the time this was going on, and noticed nothing unusual at all.

The ATIS for the period is a bit unusual.
At about 8pm:INFO P. RWY 27. WND: 340/8. WX: CAVOK. TMP: 27. QNH: 1006
So showing a light northerly. No issues at all.

9pm: INFO R. RWY 27. TMP: 25. WND: VARYING 180 & 350/15 KTS, MAX CROSSWIND 15 KTS. QNH: 1006. WX: CAVOK.
This is the interesting one. If you a flying the approach to 16/34, it's saying that you could have 15 knots tailwind on either runway (and also 15 knots crosswind, but that's not an issue). But, if the wind is flicking about from northerly to southerly, you could actually end up with a shear of up to 30 knots. In itself, 15 knots of tailwind is at the maximum limit. Couple that with a large shear, that can't decide whether it is head or tail wind, and you'd end up with an almost impossible approach. I expect that it would likely activate the EK's landing warning system. I don't know the details of this system, as we don't use it, but apparently it will dynamically decide a runway is too short, based on the conditions at the time. As they treat its warnings as a mandatory go around, there's not much in the way of alternatives. If the wind is flicking from head to tail, it would be virtually impossible to get the speed within the required speed range for the approach to be stable.

27 is simply not a real option. Depending upon the figures I use, the performance application gives answers that either require unacceptable levels of braking (which will give super hot brakes, and Melbourne has no brake cooling available), or deems the runway too short.

9pm: INFO S. TMP: 22. WND: 180 DEG MNM 15 KTS, MAX 25 KTS, MAX CROSSWIND 25 KTS. QNH: 1007. RWY 27. WX: CAVOK
And now the wind has worked out what it is doing, and has settled on a steady direction, with a bit of gusting. Back to no issue.

The alternative to diverting to Sydney would have been to hold for a while. In this instance the weather has become better within a short period. I doubt that any conditions giving a 180º wind swing would ever last very long.

Tailwinds are very limiting. The maximum is 15 knots using flap full, or 10 knots using flap 3. They often lead to long landings. The must be allowed for at 150% of their strength in performance calculations, whilst headwinds are only given 50%.

 

[opusman]

The alternative to diverting to Sydney would have been to hold for a while. In this instance the weather has become better within a short period. I doubt that any conditions giving a 180º wind swing would ever last very long.

I was surprised they decided to go straight to Sydney without holding for a little while, but I guess it all depends on available fuel. It was risky though - we ended up pushing back in Sydney at 22:45 so were cutting it close for the curfew.

Tailwinds are very limiting. The maximum is 15 knots using flap full, or 10 knots using flap 3. They often lead to long landings. The must be allowed for at 150% of their strength in performance calculations, whilst headwinds are only given 50%.

Aeronautically speaking what's the issue with tailwinds? Too strong and you have too much lift to land in time?

 

[jb747]

I was surprised they decided to go straight to Sydney without holding for a little while, but I guess it all depends on available fuel. It was risky though - we ended up pushing back in Sydney at 22:45 so were cutting it close for the curfew.

To be honest, I'm a bit surprised that they had fuel for Sydney after two missed approaches. First approach would have been planned for, but the second would have used about 3,000 kgs of fuel that wouldn't have been allowed for. You'd then need about another 18 tonnes for diversion fuel to Sydney. About 11 to burn. All of that is increasing the weight, and making the use of 27 even less likely.

Aeronautically speaking what's the issue with tailwinds? Too strong and you have too much lift to land in time?

Remember that this wasn't just tailwind. It was switching between head and tail, so even getting the IAS within the tolerance would have been difficult/impossible.

Tailwinds have to be accounted for at 150% of their strength as a legal requirement. They increase the ground speed, and so give a lot more energy to get rid of after landing, dramatically increasing the brake temperature. As approaches are flown at a fixed angle relative to the ground, a tail wind will require a greater sink rate to fly the same path. Normally the rate on finals is about 700 fpm, with a limit of 1,000 fpm, so not much margin there (about 1º). To fly that path, you will need less power than usual, perhaps putting you back into the area from which the engine acceleration becomes lethargic. The higher ground speed, and greater required descent rate make it much harder to slow the aircraft, and much more difficult to get it stable. Very easy for the pilots to misjudge it all. Higher sink rate coming into the flare, coupled with less power, also makes judging the flare more difficult. Strong tendency to float, and land long.