Ask The Pilot

  • Thread starter Thread starter NM
  • Start date Start date
  • Featured
.

Sullenberger's effort was pretty damn good!

Finally got to see it. It made me so angry that the armchair/Monday morning quarterbacks were so intent on crucifying him and Skyles.

And they were basing their opinions on what happened on flawed ACARS data and Airbus pilots who had 17 sim attempts to return to the two alternative airports when knowing in advance what was to occur.

I know that Eastwood may have used a bit of cinematic licence, but these investigating bodies all seem to focus on "it had to be the pilot".

Finally, Hanks said at one point (as Sully) that software engineers aren't pilots. I think that I've read that here on the odd occasion.
 
Finally got to see it. It made me so angry that the armchair/Monday morning quarterbacks were so intent on crucifying him and Skyles.

And they were basing their opinions on what happened on flawed ACARS data and Airbus pilots who had 17 sim attempts to return to the two alternative airports when knowing in advance what was to occur.

I know that Eastwood may have used a bit of cinematic licence, but these investigating bodies all seem to focus on "it had to be the pilot".

Finally, Hanks said at one point (as Sully) that software engineers aren't pilots. I think that I've read that here on the odd occasion.

I enjoyed the movie. In general the aviation sequences were pretty accurate, and it certainly covered the post incident trauma well. But, a lot of licence was taken with the NTSB. I think I'd go as far as saying their portrayal was quite unfair, but it did serve to put some more drama into the movie.

One flaw in the flying....when the female captain crashes during a sim, she takes reverse thrust AFTER running into a building!
 
Last edited:
I was reading an old article from April 2016 that stated how new CASA fatigue regulations for airline crew were to be introduced in May 2017.

However this indicates that the date has become October 2018:

https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/fatigue-management

Is this as a result of lobbying by the 'big 4' domestic airlines, or smaller ones like Rex, to minimise or defer as far as possible any additional costs? Or is it also due to concerns from the general aviation sector (small charter companies, cropdusters and so on)?

Is the delay benign in our aviators' view, or is it sinister, or something in between?

Various articles online suggest that while pilots may not always be at the 'high' end of the fatigue scale, because any problems with alertness can have extremely serious consequences (in a worst case), they are at the high end of the 'consequences' scale.
 
I was reading an old article from April 2016 that stated how new CASA fatigue regulations for airline crew were to be introduced in May 2017.

However this indicates that the date has become October 2018:

Is this as a result of lobbying by the 'big 4' domestic airlines, or smaller ones like Rex, to minimise or defer as far as possible any additional costs? Or is it also due to concerns from the general aviation sector (small charter companies, cropdusters and so on)?

Is the delay benign in our aviators' view, or is it sinister, or something in between?

Various articles online suggest that while pilots may not always be at the 'high' end of the fatigue scale, because any problems with alertness can have extremely serious consequences (in a worst case), they are at the high end of the 'consequences' scale.

Initially the airlines loved the idea of fatigue management. All they needed to do was make it a rule not to fly fatigued, and then they could build two man crew rosters as long as they liked. And I'm not joking.

Basically, it's all a massive screw up, and it will not make fatigue less of a problem, but more likely a greater issue.
 
Curious about the impact of the transition from central control columns to one handed control left or right?

Personally I would find flying as co pilot easier with my stronger right hand
 
It's never been a problem for me - started off stick in right hand (CT4/PC9), moved to right hand yoke (Herc) to left hand yoke (Herc) to either on any given day and same on jets. Your brain just works it out - i have seen some junior guys do the opposite of what they intended in a go around after a move of seat but sorted out soon thereafter (ie pull back and power up intended but actions are pull power back and push nose over because that was what your hands did from the other seat).
 
Curious about the impact of the transition from central control columns to one handed control left or right?

Personally I would find flying as co pilot easier with my stronger right hand

As Boris said, your brain just works it out. I'd only ever flown right handed right up until I started 767 Command training. Switching hands was a very minor part of the whole deal, and wasn't even something you thought of after the first sim. SO's switch sides constantly.

The older aircraft did require a bit of strength, but not so much that it would matter which arm was stronger. The modern electric joysticks aren't heavy at all.
 
Last edited:
Could you tell me what the actual number of hours from actual take off to back on the ground SYD LAX is please. I am trying to get us SYD LAX without having to bunny hop SYD HNL LAX but my partner is a cough flyer - oxygen, sick bags etc required last time we did SYD LAX in 747. Recently we've managed 10 hrs takeoff to landing without incident.
 
Could you tell me what the actual number of hours from actual take off to back on the ground SYD LAX is please. I am trying to get us SYD LAX without having to bunny hop SYD HNL LAX but my partner is a cough flyer - oxygen, sick bags etc required last time we did SYD LAX in 747. Recently we've managed 10 hrs takeoff to landing without incident.

SYD-LAX can vary with winds, but on average BLOCK time has been about 13.5hrs. This includes taxi, take off, landing, and taxi in to the gate at the other end. Flying time averages about 13hrs on the way over. Coming home, expect to add an hour to those times, even up to 1.5hrs (especially during winter in SYD and the required slot times for curfew).
 
Looks like the 94 had an incident. Hopefully nothing too serious.

Read it in the herald sun. The comments page has produced the usual comments but the dreaded "plunge" and "forced down" words are noticeably absent.

The exercise to produce a replacement aircraft there must be an expensive exercise.
 
Ah, the dreaded engine failure in a four engined aircraft.

There's bugger all information in the newspaper articles. It most certainly wasn't on fire, though if it compressor stalled then that may give some flashes of flame as the normal air flows are disrupted. Bear in mind that these engines are ALWAYS on fire, it's just that you can't normally see it.

Systems-wise, you won't lose much. You can get the generator back if you want by starting the APU, and you'd most likely dump some fuel, though you wouldn't bother trying to get to max landing weight (you can land heavier, just different rules). That engine doesn't provide any hydraulics, so no effect on that system.
 
Ah, the dreaded engine failure in a four engined aircraft.

There's bugger all information in the newspaper articles. It most certainly wasn't on fire, though if it compressor stalled then that may give some flashes of flame as the normal air flows are disrupted. Bear in mind that these engines are ALWAYS on fire, it's just that you can't normally see it.

Systems-wise, you won't lose much. You can get the generator back if you want by starting the APU, and you'd most likely dump some fuel, though you wouldn't bother trying to get to max landing weight (you can land heavier, just different rules). That engine doesn't provide any hydraulics, so no effect on that system.
What sort of priority would the aircraft have been given on approach back to LAX? Would you normally want to get on the ground as quickly as possible, or happy to wait your turn?
 
I know that Eastwood may have used a bit of cinematic licence, but these investigating bodies all seem to focus on "it had to be the pilot".

But, a lot of licence was taken with the NTSB. I think I'd go as far as saying their portrayal was quite unfair, but it did serve to put some more drama into the movie.

It certainly has been claimed that Eastwood deliberately fabricated conflict/dramatic tension by making the NTSB the 'villains'. (Ironically the opposite may have been true - the NTSB may have been "more deferential and complimentary" due to the media halo around Sully.)

Crash Investigators Pan Their Casting as Villains in ‘Sully’ - Bloomberg

What the 'Sully' Movie Gets Wrong - Condé Nast Traveler

The Guardian (Sullied: with Sully, Clint Eastwood is weaponizing a hero) sees political themes and ramifications:-

It’s not hard to see why this tack appealed to strident libertarian Eastwood. In its populist zeal, the American right wing has been increasingly unwilling to accept the legitimacy of any branch of federal government. Sully meshes perfectly with a worldview where petty and clueless civil servants obstruct real Americans from being great.

Most people – including elected officials – are not familiar with how NTSB investigations work. As a box-office hit, Sully will form the first, lasting, impression for many. This has real risks.

Around the world, the NTSB’s investigations are regarded as setting the gold standard for impartiality, perceptiveness and making recommendations with important safety benefits. The NTSB has saved countless lives. Yet the NTSB has no regulatory ability: to turn its recommendations into practice, the board relies solely on a moral authority founded on its reputation for diligence. The stakes are high – the board currently has a list of 10 critical safety improvements that it’s trying to get implemented, including, for example, positive train control, something that would have spared 243 people last year from a deadly Amtrak derailment.

Sully has smeared this reputation for the sake of a hero who needed no defending. It will create a headwind in the minds of the public and policymakers that the NTSB will be struggling against for years to come.
 
What sort of priority would the aircraft have been given on approach back to LAX? Would you normally want to get on the ground as quickly as possible, or happy to wait your turn?

In the USA, you either have an emergency, or you don't. Here, you'd probably declare a PAN. You aren't in any particular need of priority, and at the time of day they arrived, it would be very quiet anyway.

Would QF email it's other 380 pilots about the incident?


We won't hear anything about it unless there's something unusual about it, or if it leads to procedural changes. Most likely this is a simple engine shutdown, with no further ramifications. They happen. The aren't at all common, but across any fleet over the course of a year, there would be a couple.

I know that according to the media this is an event of earth shattering proportions, but it simply isn't unusual. On an aircraft with 4 engines it barely requires any operational changes from normal.
 
If the QF A380 has a different version of the Trent900, is the version recognised by the Flight computers and therefore the differences in performance automatically accounted for in the ssoftware?.

Does using a lower thrust version affect takeoff and range performance materially?
 
Read our AFF credit card guides and start earning more points now.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top