Ask The Pilot

[NM]

There are a number of paths that are in use for the flights up to Europe. There are routes that go directly over Kabul and then exit up towards Uzbekistan. Most go over Turkmenistan. There were a couple that headed over Iran, but they aren't being used by most western airlines at the moment. To the south, you could fly over Dubai, and then up over either Bagdad, or Cyprus.

If you experienced a major technical problem while over-flying Afganistan or Iraq (say a rapid decompression due to something blowing a whole in the side of teh aircraft), where would you consider an emergency landing?

I assume as you over-fly the middle east you have enough altitude to trade for distance to reach a "safe" airport. But if you have to lose that altitude quickly due to decompression, are there places inside Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria etc you would land in an emergency, or would always expect to be able to make it just as quickly/safely to say Aman, Beirut or Kuwait

 

[rechoboam]

Compared to your Cherokee, of course it is.

The reality is that you can't. I can't, and I've got almost 20,000 hours.

Airlines, at least reputable ones, operate to quite narrow restrictions on approach speeds. In the A380, I'm allowed +10/-5 knots. Boeing is a couple of knots wider. That's allowed for in the performance data. It's rare to see an approach that is outside of 0/+5 knots.

With 20-30 flights per year i am convinced that every approach we have ever made to Sunshine Coast (MCY??) landing to the south on J* has been much faster than any other flight. I remember one approach where I actually got nervous which is pretty unusual for me. Am I imagining this? Jb i know you wouldnt fly that at least not these days but could there possibly be a reason?

 

[nlagalle]

Into Sydney on Sunday morning......

Really? Was their a particular reason why?

 

[jb747]

If you experienced a major technical problem while over-flying Afganistan or Iraq (say a rapid decompression due to something blowing a whole in the side of teh aircraft), where would you consider an emergency landing?

I assume as you over-fly the middle east you have enough altitude to trade for distance to reach a "safe" airport. But if you have to lose that altitude quickly due to decompression, are there places inside Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria etc you would land in an emergency, or would always expect to be able to make it just as quickly/safely to say Aman, Beirut or Kuwait

Depressurisation over high terrain has always been planned for by the provision of routes for us to fly 'after the event'. At most times, it's possible to do a dive for either 14,000 or 10,000 feet, but obviously there are times when the safety height will preclude this. On the Afghan flights there are a number of diversion tracks that we can choose, which will get us as low as possible. Airports? Lahore, Karachi, Delhi, Tehran, Dubai, and Ashgabat are all possibilities. A bit further along, you have Baku, and places in Turkey. Depends which way you're travelling, and just where the problem occurs. In a QF30 scenario, Ashgabat would probably be the #1 choice.

The initial descent would probably be to around 18 to 20,000 feet. That's above the safety height (and the view out the window would be interesting), but still low enough that passengers with supplemental oxygen would have no issues (for a while anyway).

When problems happen in an aircraft, there's always a range of possible responses. In QF30 it was decided that as we did not know the structural situation of the aircraft, getting it onto the ground ASAP was the number one priority. But, a problem that simply precludes going much further, whilst not making you doubt the structure is much less urgent, and so you may accept a longer flight to a better alternate (i.e. Dubai). Getting rid of weight, and taking care of procedures can also take appreciable time (QF32), and that time can also allow you to track towards a better alternate.

 

[jb747]

Really? Was there a particular reason why?

It was Sydney. They don't need a reason. Actually Australian airports in general have a nasty habit of operating with unsuitable wind/runway choices. Presumably that's the result of the political interference mentioned a couple of posts ago. I recall hearing at one point that 16L (Sydney) was considered suitable for 767s with up to 5 knots of downwind. I considered it unsuitable with less than 20kts of headwind. I think the theory is that people above my pay grade do "risk management", which basically means that they manage, and I take the risk. In any event, I always knocked that runway back when I was on the 767, as I do now any time I consider the operating mode increases my risk. I guess I'm very averse to it.....

But, having said that, onto a long runway, a small amount of downwind is neither here nor there, and it's often the case when winds are light that they are actually all over the place directionally...head one minute, and tail the next.

 

[jb747]

With 20-30 flights per year i am convinced that every approach we have ever made to Sunshine Coast (MCY??) landing to the south on J* has been much faster than any other flight. I remember one approach where I actually got nervous which is pretty unusual for me. Am I imagining this? Jb i know you wouldnt fly that at least not these days but could there possibly be a reason?

Really hard to say. I've never flown into MCY, so I don't know if there are any features which would add to the illusion. Rising or falling terrain certainly makes an approach look 'wrong'. But, if all of those approaches look the same, then presumably, that's the norm.

One clue that an approach may have been fast is if the aircraft has an extended 'float' in the flare (there are other reasons for that too though).

Any stable approach will have power adjustments throughout. They'll be for both more or less power. If you don't feel any demands for a power increase, then something is amiss. But, if the crew are making adjustments (in both directions) then you can be pretty sure that they're right on their target airspeed.

 

[harvyk]

How long can supplemental oxygen last? Or is it a range of factors which only come to light after a decompression event?
Also is the pax oxygen automatically deployed if the cabin altitude goes over a certain height (eg 10,000ft) or is there an actual button which needs to be pressed?

Also in another thread you mentioned that the auto mode for the seatbelt sign is linked to flaps. Is there any other trigger which will turn the sign on \ off.

Whilst rarely used these days, would the no smoking sign have similar triggers as the seatbelt sign if it was in auto mode?

 

[simongr]

When problems happen in an aircraft, there's always a range of possible responses. In QF30 it was decided that as we did not know the structural situation of the aircraft, getting it onto the ground ASAP was the number one priority. But, a problem that simply precludes going much further, whilst not making you doubt the structure is much less urgent, and so you may accept a longer flight to a better alternate (i.e. Dubai). Getting rid of weight, and taking care of procedures can also take appreciable time (QF32), and that time can also allow you to track towards a better alternate.

What was the QF30 incident? Was it this: Qantas Flight 30 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - the "exploding air tank"?

Assuming it was how did you feel about the Polaris Award?

 

[jb747]

How long can supplemental oxygen last? Or is it a range of factors which only come to light after a decompression event?

It depends on what aircraft you're on. The gas generator systems, as used in 767/777/320/330 etc have a pretty short life. Normally somewhere from 12 to 20 minutes. That affects the routes that they can use.

The bottled systems (747/380) last for hours.

Also is the pax oxygen automatically deployed if the cabin altitude goes over a certain height (eg 10,000ft) or is there an actual button which needs to be pressed?

It will be deployed automatically if the cabin exceeds roughly 13,500 feet. That's something that is actually tested in acceptance (and other) test flights.

There is a switch as well, but I'd expect that by the time it is selected, the automatic system should have done its job...so it's basically a backup.

Also in another thread you mentioned that the auto mode for the seatbelt sign is linked to flaps. Is there any other trigger which will turn the sign on \ off.

Whilst rarely used these days, would the no smoking sign have similar triggers as the seatbelt sign if it was in auto mode?

Gear, flaps, depressurisation.

 

[jb747]

What was the QF30 incident? Was it this: Qantas Flight 30 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - the "exploding air tank"?

Assuming it was how did you feel about the Polaris Award?

Honoured, and a little embarrassed.

 

[MadFairlane]

With regards to this video Awesome crosswind landing video - One Mile at a Time

With a whole lot of nasty looking crosswind landings.

Is it easier to land a large plane (747/380) etc than a smaller one (E190 etc) in a crosswind situation?

I assume that the weight and size of plane will make a difference, but if you had a choice would you prefer to try and land the larger or smaller stuff in that situation.

 

[jb747]

With regards to this video Awesome crosswind landing video - One Mile at a Time

With a whole lot of nasty looking crosswind landings.

Yep, youtube has lots of video of crosswind landings from around the world. One of the harder ones to handle isn't shown in the video, but it consists of about 15-20 knots from one side up to the flare, and then it swaps to about the same strength from the other side.

Is it easier to land a large plane (747/380) etc than a smaller one (E190 etc) in a crosswind situation?

Not really. It depends more on the individual aircraft than upon its size. In the A4 you'd run out of aileron at about 25 knots, so that was the limit...747 goes to 35 knots, 767 to 38 knots, and the 380 to 40 knots. But, whilst the 380 nominally has a higher limit than the 747, its behaviour is anything but nice, and I suspect Airbus picked the number just to be 'better' than Boeing.

There is a video somewhere on youtube of the control inputs being made by an A320 FO during a landing in a crosswind. He's over controlling quite badly, but that's about the norm in the AB.
Here is it: Landing A320 Hard Crosswind ( Sidestick View ) - YouTube

I assume that the weight and size of plane will make a difference, but if you had a choice would you prefer to try and land the larger or smaller stuff in that situation.

I think the 767 is the best aircraft in a crosswind that I have flown. Small enough to have some margin, excellent control response and power. Plus, you don't have to get it straight, as it is quite acceptable in the Boeings to land with ALL of the drift intact.

 

[Duffa]

I can't remember the time I landed with a tailwind!

You've obviously never gone in or out of Albury!

 

[nlagalle]

It was Sydney. They don't need a reason. Actually Australian airports in general have a nasty habit of operating with unsuitable wind/runway choices. Presumably that's the result of the political interference mentioned a couple of posts ago. I recall hearing at one point that 16L (Sydney) was considered suitable for 767s with up to 5 knots of downwind. I considered it unsuitable with less than 20kts of headwind. I think the theory is that people above my pay grade do "risk management", which basically means that they manage, and I take the risk. In any event, I always knocked that runway back when I was on the 767, as I do now any time I consider the operating mode increases my risk. I guess I'm very averse to it.....

But, having said that, onto a long runway, a small amount of downwind is neither here nor there, and it's often the case when winds are light that they are actually all over the place directionally...head one minute, and tail the next.

Ahh gotcha...

Best i had was flying some circuits at YMMB and just after I rotated over the radio they announced they were changing from 17L to 35R.. As i was the last one to take off I basically turned downwind and was instructed to turn 180! suddenly was Number 1 and turning onto base!

 

[elemist]

In the event of something like the war in Afghanistan what's the protocol for that? I would assume there would have been aircraft in that airspace or entering that airspace or with flight plans through that airspace.

Who would have been giving ATC directions?

From what i understand the Kabul airport was one of the first places targeted, amongst other targets including power generation - i assume that would have taken out some of the air traffic control system as well as controllers.

Would the US have taken over air traffic control via something like an AWACS or have i been watching too many movies

 

[jb747]

In the event of something like the war in Afghanistan what's the protocol for that? I would assume there would have been aircraft in that airspace or entering that airspace or with flight plans through that airspace.

Who would have been giving ATC directions?

From what i understand the Kabul airport was one of the first places targeted, amongst other targets including power generation - i assume that would have taken out some of the air traffic control system as well as controllers.

Would the US have taken over air traffic control via something like an AWACS or have i been watching too many movies

The Americans are already controlling the airspace over Afghanistan.

Western initiated wars that I can think of generally come with quite some lead time, so I presume that the airspace would be closed well ahead of the event. Kuwait, and Grenada type evens are rather more rare, and in that case, I think you might be on your own.....

 

[harvyk]

Is there any procedure in place if ATC can't be contacted but not due to radio failure? An example I could think of is they have had to evacuate the building due to fire or bomb threat.

 

[jb747]

Is there any procedure in place if ATC can't be contacted but not due to radio failure? An example I could think of is they have had to evacuate the building due to fire or bomb threat.

There are a couple of 'contingency procedures' though they are mostly there to cater for diversions around weather without a clearance. There are also procedures for 'loss of radio'.

But, in the instance you mention, the best answer is to simply press on with your cleared/flight planned operation. Don't change anything. That's what everyone expects, and all the separation has been based on. And in the meantime, use the various radios to call up alternative ATC centres (i.e. next one ahead, or the one behind). If you have a data link log on, then somebody knows where you are. Some of them also have sat-phone numbers that we can ring. You could even ring home, and pass the buck to them, as they have phone access to everywhere.

Poor comms still exist in many parts of the world. The data links are slowly improving that, but it's not there yet.

Closest I've seen to what you mention happened in Singapore, when a lightning strike took out all of the ATCs comms. It stayed out for hours. Numerous aircraft, from different parts of the world, all somewhere in the arrivals sequence (it's easier for the departing aircraft, as they could flick to the next centre without much delay), and of course, all with reasonably limited fuel. The loss of comms procedure simply does not cater for this sort of failure. After a bit of a confusing pause, a pilot on one of the aircraft, who was obviously an ex ATC started putting it all together, and he was going great guns, until a couple of the usual suspects decided that they didn't have to listen, and would make their own arrangements. It was extremely interesting to listen to, but they were very lucky that it didn't turn into a mid air collision.

It never seemed to cross anyones' mind that there were a couple of hundred perfectly serviceable radios sitting on the tarmac.

 

[awilcockson]

I can't remember the time I landed with a tailwind!

Oh, a chance to tell my story

I was on my first solo heading toward my PPL.

C150 at YSBK, took off on 29L, there were 6 other light aircraft in front of me in the circuit (a fairly standard Saturday morning at Bankstown). As I was turning down wind, the tower called to say that the wind had shifted and that they were changing runways from 29L/R to 11R/L, and that all aircraft in the circuit were to perform a complete stop and line up on the adjacent taxi way and that once everyone was down they'd change the runway direction and the circuits could start up again.

So ... first solo ... first solo landing ... not only did I have the pressure of my instructor watching me from outside the aircraft, but I had 6 other pilots sitting on the adjacent taxi-way spectating as I landed ... with what was now a gentle tail wind!

Needless to say I landed long, not that that is a major issue in a C150 at YSBK

I actually received a call from the tower after I'd returned to the club congratulating me on the way I'd handled the situation. I much prefer to remember that call than the one I got after a Victor 1 flight that may have come a little close to YSSY airspace

 

[markis10]

Oh, a chance to tell my story

I was on my first solo heading toward my PPL.

C150 at YSBK, took off on 29L, there were 6 other light aircraft in front of me in the circuit.

Should have only been 6 in the circuit as that is the limit for the training circuit at Bankstown, and it might have been me that called