Ask The Pilot

[AviatorInsight]

HI Pilots, can you please clarify the use of the terms 'long final' and 'short final'? In various forums I've seen 'short final', for example, to mean 'on approach and close to landing' and 'landing clearance given late by ATC'. Which one of these definitions is used by pilots or is it something else?

It’s all open to interpretation. I’ve had to request a long final before due to a certain malfunction and ATC established me outside of 10nm. Either at the initial approach fix or outside is what I would consider a long final so that worked out well.

Short final (sometimes late final, depends on who you talk to) to me would be anything below 500ft, ie, you’re fully configured and stable.

Oh and I’m glad you’ve used it in the correct sense, final not finals.

 

[jb747]

From pprune, with regard to the EK JFK approach....

"Operating crew and augmenting captain have been fired. Augmenting fo - final written warning"

Problem solved!

 

[Quickstatus]

From pprune, with regard to the EK JFK approach....

"Operating crew and augmenting captain have been fired. Augmenting fo - final written warning"

Problem solved!

Sorry to hear this. I wonder if someone can tell EK to read up on “Just culture”. Finding the balance between summary punishment and blamelessness is the goal of a just culture.
This sounds like summary dismissal as the official NTSB investigations (are there any) are yet to be published??. .but we don’t know the dismissed pilots flying record with EK.

How does summary dismissal improve reliability?.

 

[Major]

I would have thought some additional SIM's might have been more appropriate. I hope they don't repeat their effort with the next employer

 

[jb747]

I would have thought some additional SIM's might have been more appropriate. I hope they don't repeat their effort with the next employer

I wonder if some SIM sessions for that particular approach, would be a good idea for all of their pilots. QF wouldn't let you operate that sector unless you'd done the sim session. But, if airlines send you there, without specific training, and the approach contains a bit of a trap, then the result we've just seen is only a matter of time. Firing the one group in the company who are least likely to make that mistake again, is also counter productive. Recall too, that similar happened at Moscow only a few weeks beforehand. I'd be looking that their overall culture, and their fatigue situation.

"Just culture" is mostly just HR speak.

 

[moa999]

I assume this pilot culture costs EK in the long run.

In times of pilot shortage (which we are seemingly hitting) these sort of decisions presumably make people reconsider EK.

 

[tgh]

I assume this pilot culture costs EK in the long run.

In times of pilot shortage (which we are seemingly hitting) these sort of decisions presumably make people reconsider EK.

I opine that there is an unstoppable imperative within EK to maintain the program, so "pilots" will be found.
I really like the EK hard product but my mind now insists that the risk is a bridge too far.

 

[Major]

This has been a pretty quiet year. I took a six week chunk of leave, and then that was closely followed by an 8 week blank line roster, which would have to have been the quietest one I've ever done. Generally you reach the average flying on a blank line, and often exceed it, but that one gave nothing.

Total will be right on 600 hours. 2015 was 845. No blank line planned for 2017, and very likely little leave, so I expect I'll be bouncing off 900 (max) hours.

At the end of the year, my total hours will be 20846, of which 14851 are heavy jet command.

So did you get close to 900 hours ?

 

[Quickstatus]

This has been a pretty quiet year. I took a six week chunk of leave, and then that was closely followed by an 8 week blank line roster, which would have to have been the quietest one I've ever done. Generally you reach the average flying on a blank line, and often exceed it, but that one gave nothing.

Total will be right on 600 hours. 2015 was 845. No blank line planned for 2017, and very likely little leave, so I expect I'll be bouncing off 900 (max) hours.

At the end of the year, my total hours will be 20846, of which 14851 are heavy jet command.

Are most pilots in the company close to max at end of (hours) accounting year

 

[jb747]

I’m up to about 875 at the moment, which is for a rolling 365 days. Most pilots are right up there. We don't account for the flying in calendar or financial years...always a rolling period. At the moment, a trip that I did literally a year ago, has to fall off the list before I can do another.

Next roster is a blank line, which may serve to lower the hours, though that is never guaranteed. The last blank that I did was the quietest ever, with zero flying and a couple of sims. But, the other bloke doing the blank at the same time, got heaps of flying. Just luck of the draw with regard to when you do standby. Historically, most blank lines have been busy.

We have no idea what we are doing next year, other than losing the Melbourne-London flights to the 787. My guess is that 2018 will contain less hours, but until we see a flying program, I have no idea.

 

[Himeno]

We have no idea what we are doing next year, other than losing the Melbourne-London flights to the 787. My guess is that 2018 will contain less hours, but until we see a flying program, I have no idea.

You'd still have MEL-LAX and MEL-SIN. I assume they'd give the MEL base some SIN-LHR rotations like you've been getting some DXB-LHR QF1/2 rotations?

 

[jb747]

The reason that we switch from the 9 to the 1 in Dubai is that it allows shorter slips. So they could give us some of the London flights, but there is no guarantee at all. if all that is on offer is Sin and LA, I’ll look at going back to Sydney...just for some variety.

 

[Quickstatus]

What do the pilot/cabin crew prefer?. DXB or SIN? I understand the cabin crew don’t go further than DXB as LHR sectors are crewed by LHR locals?

 

[jb747]

Singapore wins......

 

[jb747]

Sim sessions have been discussed many times, but we also do other checks in the aircraft.

When nearing the end of command training, you'll do a six sector flight, called a 'pre final'. You are expected to just run the flights, and deal with whatever comes up. But, some training input is still allowed, and questions will still be answered. That is followed by another six sector check, in which you must deal with everything...the buck stops with you. At that point you'll be let loose...only to run into another (single sector) check 90 days down the road...just to keep an eye on how you are going.

Checks at the end of conversion training will be one or two sectors. The conversions themselves will include 20 or so flights.

Annually we do a route check. This will consist of two short sectors, or one long one. The checking pilot will normally not be part of the crew. They keep out of the operation, but can mark you on your flying, or management of any of the issues that come up. They will also have a very short quiz / discussion session in the cruise. Route checks have the most amazing ability to throw up odd things that just never seem to happen day to day. Many a check Captain has been asked 'how did you arrange that'. Recent personal examples... a go around in LA after multiple unsafe gear indications, and more recently a series of computer glitches that made me think that Y2K had arrived 17 years late. And, of course, RdC's famous flight was also a route check...

 

[Quickstatus]

and of course the check pilot gets checked too..

Do some spend their time entirely as check pilots?. What about the Sim checkers?

 

[jb747]

and of course the check pilot gets checked too..

Do some spend their time entirely as check pilots?. What about the Sim checkers?

With FOs and Captains both needing route checks once per year, it averages out to four of these being done every day. Needless to say, their scheduling can be quite a nightmare.

The guys who do the line checks are normally, but not always, the C&T Captains. They are qualified to fly in either the right or left hand seat, and will do line training for pilots on conversions or promotion courses. That's the T part of the title. For checks they are generally additional to the crew, although they can be used as SOs if it becomes necessary. About half of their time is spent checking. When the training loads are heavy, they can end up with almost all of their flying time being taken up.

The Senior Check Captains do spend much of their time in the simulators, but they can do the checks, and will also do the initial sectors for any courses...after which it goes to the C&Ts. Their flying is generally one third of a line, with the rest of their time spent in the simulator.

There are also dedicated simulator instructors. They do not fly the aircraft, although they will have done the entire sim course. They're generally pilots who have retired...they come from many parts of the world, and bring points of view from other airlines and types.

 

[mikenz]

Route checks have the most amazing ability to throw up odd things that just never seem to happen day to day.

------

How often do issues arise in the coughpit? Do you have any flights where there are no issues? What's the most common issue you deal with?

 

[jb747]

How often do issues arise in the coughpit? Do you have any flights where there are no issues? What's the most common issue you deal with?

Most issues are external to the coughpit. Passenger issues, ranging from simply disappearing in the terminal right through to medical. Most are handled readily enough, but can be time consuming. For instance a passenger who needs to be offloaded will cause about 15 minutes delay. That could cost you your slot, or perhaps cause you to end up at a lower level. That in turn burns more fuel, and might cause issues later.

Weather would be the most pervasive issue, but it is, of course, just part of the job. A four sector flight from Oz to London, could give you the entire range of snow and ice to tropical thunderstorms. Again, part of the deal.

Aircraft MELs, which are basically acceptable defects exist on almost all flights. Most are trivia, and have no effect on the coughpit or cabin. But some can require quite time consuming procedures, and these are overlaid onto the normal procedures, and serve to add to the time pressures. At the very least, you need to read through each and every one of them to ensure you understand their ramifications.

ECAMs are the procedures associated with the automatic warning systems. The system detects a fault, sets off the master caution, and brings up a procedure for you to follow. Airborne, you generally resolve the situation, and as long as it doesn't require a landing as part of the procedure, you can continue the flight. But on the ground, you need to complete the ECAM, and then go into the MELs to determine whether you can continue the flight or have to go back to the gate.

Many ECAMS consist of nothing more than 'crew awareness'. In that case the system has detected the fault, automatically done what it can about it, and is telling you just to keep you in the loop. Nevertheless, that could also reference an MEL, and that will need to be consulted.

A recent ECAM came up during engine start. Obviously at that point our attention is on the engines, but many other systems are coming to life, or having power or air sources changed during that period. The ECAM was somewhat cryptic, IFE BAY VENT VALVE FAULT. The procedure said simply IFEC - OFF (which is one of those switches that you never touch and need a search to find). It added that the IFE may be available in flight. The MEL said that IFE would have to be left off if the 'in flight' component was missing. So, now we have two engines running. We may have to go back to the gate, as IFE is currently off throughout the aircraft, but, we may be able to recover it in flight. Cabin crew use the IFE for safety briefings, so they need to revert to manual briefing. After a bit of discussion, we decide to go. The normal start procedures have been interrupted, so we need to complete them, and then back up a bit to ensure that nothing has been missed. Get airborne. Call engineering and get them to have a good look at the system. We know that leaving it off is safe, but it's a long flight without IFE, so we want them to ensure there's no risk to turning it back on. Eventually reactivate the system, and it behaves as advertised.

Most flights have zero ECAMS or faults. Most that do come up are quite trivial. I'm touching wood as I say this, but it's some years since I've had a significant ECAM, and even then it didn't stop us getting to destination. The biggest issue with anything is always time. It's very easy to lose time whilst sorting out procedures, especially when they've been translated from French, via Polish, Latin, and Greek. Hasten slowly is always the best way to move forward, but you need to balance that with the fact that an aircraft is moving at about 1,000 feet per second, you you never want it to get someplace that your head didn't get to a couple of minutes previously.

To directly answer your question though...most flights have no issues. And even if they do, it's my job to make them go away.

 

[blu]

We noticed on a recent landing BA777 into NRT, the captain had to accelerate the engines to increase speed, a minute or so before touchdown. Never noticed that before unless going-around. Wouldn't the auto systems prevent an underspeed situation occuring? Still, was a nice landing.