Ask The Pilot

[opusman]

So would it be more normal in that situation to hold for a while after the first missed approach, rather than try again straight away? Or divert immediately to Sydney without the second try?

 

[Melburnian1]

As baby boomers (the last of whom were born in mid 1961) approach 'traditional' retirement ages of 60 for women and 65 for men, there's quite some focus in the media on those 50 and above.

Across the Australian aviation industry, are our technical crew contributors noting any changes to the typical age at which flight crew retire? There'll always (sadly) in any occupation be a small minority who die prior to 60, or have to retire on ill-health grounds, and there'll be others who switch employers as in any sector, including overseas transfers.

What is the median age of retirement? Is it similar in Australia to Europe and the USA for pilots and other technical crew, and vastly different from what occurs in southeast and north Asia or the Middle East?

Is there an age above which one cannot work such as 65 or 70, and does this vary by job classification for tech crew? Do all the companies, or some, insist on ever more frequent compulsory company doctor medical reviews once one reaches a certain age? What if a Captain, for instance, was in extremely good health at say 65 and wanted to keep on working - can he be forced out or is he allowed to continue?

Given the growing propensity of Australians to be overweight or obese (not just in the aviation industry), and how risk factors for various 'sudden event' diseases (such as coronaries) may rise with age, do airlines discuss these with individual employees? I'm not suggesting the chances of anything 'sudden' happening are high - it might still be relatively low, but could be increasing as we age.

 

[ChrisGibbs]

Speaking of a tail wind. I took this on the EK432 from SIN-BNE about 18 months back. We initially made an approach to RWY01 in BNE. Did the rejected landing and made another approach to RWY19. The PIC indicated the maximum downwind component for the 777-3xx (20 knots) was exceeded during the final stages of the approach - hence the go around. From the untrained eye it also looked as though we may have landed a little long....

https://vid.me/qfxx

 

[clazman]

To my understanding passenger access to the coughpit is not allowed post 911 during flight, but it appears to still happen are there any ramifications from airlines or authorities on these events?

 

[clazman]

Thoughts on a new camera on IFE, coughpit view?

 

[AviatorInsight]

So would it be more normal in that situation to hold for a while after the first missed approach, rather than try again straight away? Or divert immediately to Sydney without the second try?

It really depends on the conditions. There are a lot of variables, but in a general sense, if it is practical to hold at the destination and then try again after conditions improved (fuel permitting) then this is obviously the preferred method before bugging out after the first attempt to the destination.

 

[AviatorInsight]

As baby boomers (the last of whom were born in mid 1961) approach 'traditional' retirement ages of 60 for women and 65 for men, there's quite some focus in the media on those 50 and above.

Across the Australian aviation industry, are our technical crew contributors noting any changes to the typical age at which flight crew retire? There'll always (sadly) in any occupation be a small minority who die prior to 60, or have to retire on ill-health grounds, and there'll be others who switch employers as in any sector, including overseas transfers.

What is the median age of retirement? Is it similar in Australia to Europe and the USA for pilots and other technical crew, and vastly different from what occurs in southeast and north Asia or the Middle East?

Is there an age above which one cannot work such as 65 or 70, and does this vary by job classification for tech crew? Do all the companies, or some, insist on ever more frequent compulsory company doctor medical reviews once one reaches a certain age? What if a Captain, for instance, was in extremely good health at say 65 and wanted to keep on working - can he be forced out or is he allowed to continue?

Given the growing propensity of Australians to be overweight or obese (not just in the aviation industry), and how risk factors for various 'sudden event' diseases (such as coronaries) may rise with age, do airlines discuss these with individual employees? I'm not suggesting the chances of anything 'sudden' happening are high - it might still be relatively low, but could be increasing as we age.

Internationally, pilots are forced to retire or transfer to domestic at 65. If they are still well enough to hold an aviation medical then some will continue flying post 65 domestically. This can be in an airline or commercial operation. Others may take that opportunity and retire. It really depends on their personal preference.

Aviation medicals are conducted once per year, however after 60 then it is increased to every 6 months.

 

[jb747]

So would it be more normal in that situation to hold for a while after the first missed approach, rather than try again straight away? Or divert immediately to Sydney without the second try?

The decision depends upon too many variables to say that anything is normal. When wind is the problem you can have a stream of aircraft, with the conditions changing in such as way that alternating aircraft get it. As long as the decisions aren't being driven by a thunderstorm, I'd go straight back for another go.

Personally I probably would not have diverted at all. The conditions were unlikely to last for any length of time, and, as he had enough fuel to go to Sydney, he obviously had enough to hold for about 90 minutes. QF 10 landed there not long after.

On the other hand, they're the ones who have had two first hand looks at the approach.

 

[jb747]

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?

I don't know anything about the 777s take off numbers, but the A380 is generally slower on both take off and approach than the 747. Cruise, climb, and descent speeds are the same. The 380 has an amazing (and huge) wing, that allows it to fly quite a bit slower, without flap, than the 747. Even flapless, the approach speeds are not extreme.

As for how it looks...I think we judge speed based upon how long it takes the tail to get to the spot where the nose is...and as that distance is so long for the big aircraft, they always seem to be slower than smaller machines.

 

[AviatorInsight]

To my understanding passenger access to the coughpit is not allowed post 911 during flight, but it appears to still happen are there any ramifications from airlines or authorities on these events?

Where have you seen this occur?

I can't find a specific regulation (in Australia) apart from the FAR (US) that states who is allowed to be in the flight deck in flight within US airspace. Naturally a lot of other airlines have also enforced this rule in their operations manuals that no one apart from the operating crew are allowed into the flight deck during flight.

There may still be some out there that don't enforce it.

Thoughts on a new camera on IFE, coughpit view?

No chance.

 

[jb747]

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.

Not quite. There is a very strong pitch couple in these aircraft, which means that in some cases, you're actually pushing against the nose pitch being caused by the power (as you start a go around). The 767 literally required no back stick, the thrust did it all for you.

But...the FBW aircraft (well, the Airbus anyway) will counter that couple, so as long as the aircraft is still in normal law, the effect disappears. So, if you want the nose to come up, you have to remember to pull.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Not quite. There is a very strong pitch couple in these aircraft, which means that in some cases, you're actually pushing against the nose pitch being caused by the power (as you start a go around). The 767 literally required no back stick, the thrust did it all for you.

But...the FBW aircraft (well, the Airbus anyway) will counter that couple, so as long as the aircraft is still in normal law, the effect disappears. So, if you want the nose to come up, you have to remember to pull.

Thanks JB, I did actually forget about the FBW aircraft (I'm currently in 737 training mode). However, the 777 won't actually counteract it like you describe the Airbus does. The tripler will only trim for a speed and not an attitude. One of our upset recovery manoeuvres is to reduce thrust with a high nose attitude. This will allow the nose to drop and give us our airspeed back to recover.

I'm obviously not familiar with the Airbus laws, but how would that work in that scenario?

 

[mannej]

Some interesting commentary here from some armchair experts... https://www.facebook.com/AIRLINESECRETS/posts/1877248892548120:0

 

[Quickstatus]

What are the typical Power settings % of TOGA at:

TO
Climb
initial cruise
just prior to top of descent say after 12 hours cruise
flaps 1,2,3
final approach
flare

 

[jb747]

Thanks JB, I did actually forget about the FBW aircraft (I'm currently in 737 training mode). However, the 777 won't actually counteract it like you describe the Airbus does. The tripler will only trim for a speed and not an attitude. One of our upset recovery manoeuvres is to reduce thrust with a high nose attitude. This will allow the nose to drop and give us our airspeed back to recover.

I'm obviously not familiar with the Airbus laws, but how would that work in that scenario?

The aircraft has an 'unusual attitude law' (which I think means it's grumpier than usual), which kicks into play in the more extreme attitudes. Basically that's direct law, so it behaves like a 'normal' aircraft. In the sim, they normally have to get a law reversion before we can even get into a UA.

 

[jb747]

Some interesting commentary here from some armchair experts... https://www.facebook.com/AIRLINESECRETS/posts/1877248892548120:0

As I said in a previous thread, I don't think I would have diverted. But, I also have the luxury of sitting in my office. I didn't see the conditions they saw (and I expect it was pretty solid shear). The choice they took was safe. Everyone got where they were going, albeit a little later. The aircraft is in one piece.

When you can do it you can be a critic. Until then....

 

[jb747]

What are the typical Power settings % of TOGA at

TO/GA is a specific thrust lever setting. It's only used take off or go around. Basically, it's the 'lot'. At other times, the thrust levers are at the CLB detent, and the power setting is controlled by the FMCs. The lever detents are at idle, CLB, MCT, and TO/GA. The auto thrust does not work with the levers in TO/GA, or MCT (unless you have and engine shut down).

TO/GA

100%...reduced by the temperature. About 88% at 45ºC.

Climb

Which one? CLB, CLB 1, CLB 2, CLB 3.
CLB about 98%
CLB1 83-98%
CLB2 78-98%
CLB3 74-98%

The actual power varies with temperature and pressure altitude.

initial cruise

About 85%

just prior to top of descent say after 12 hours cruise

Still about 85%, 'cos we keep climbing. If we leave out the last step, around 78%.

flaps 1,2,3

We aim to fly a decelerating approach, so, 1, 2, & 3 should be mostly at idle. Level, perhaps 30%.

final approach

23%

flare

Idle. Who looks? About 8% I guess.

 

[opusman]

As I said in a previous thread, I don't think I would have diverted. But, I also have the luxury of sitting in my office. I didn't see the conditions they saw (and I expect it was pretty solid shear). The choice they took was safe. Everyone got where they were going, albeit a little later. The aircraft is in one piece.

From reading that fb thread (and ignoring most of it) it sounds like EK standard procedure is maximum 2 missed approaches followed by a divert. Which suggests they would always carry the fuel to do that, I guess?

 

[Skyring]

Getting a wee bit off the topic here, but still pilot-related. A recent news story talks about "taxi drones" coming to Dubai for public use within a few months. These craft will fly one person to a destination up to 50km away and will have no pilot. The craft themselves can carry a person weighing up to 100kg (and a briefcase!) and are essentially a glorified version of the drones that photographers use to get aerial footage.

We're probably a long way from getting aboard a pilotless airliner, but what are the thoughts of real pilots on this development. Thin edge of the wedge? A dangerous novelty?

 

[jb747]

Whilst on power settings...in the comment above I mentioned the thrust lever positions. MCT is actually labelled FLEX/MCT. FLEX is a mode that's only available for take off. The power output varies, depending upon what is loaded into the FMCs. Take off power could be as low as 67%...which means that when climb power is selected, the power actually ramps up, rather than reducing. If needed, more power can be taken simply by pushing the levers into TO/GA. Pulling back into CLB, and then forward again into FLEX/MCT, will give MCT.

On approach, if you push the power to TO/GA, you'll get the lot. Pushing it up, and then reducing it to FLEX/MCT will reduce the power to that required for a 2,000 fpm rate of climb. It's then pulled back to CLB when we reach about 1,500'. Unless you have an engine out, TO/GA is too much, and reducing it is a pretty automatic reaction.