Ask The Pilot

[MEL_Traveller]

I think this was the video you are talking about? 60 Minutes: Captain Fantastic on MSN Video

It did a rerun on 60 Minutes a few nights ago.

wow! I just saw the 60 minutes report and was wondering where to ask a question so thought I would try AFF - and lo and behold - someone has just raised it!

Anyway - my question is... they showed an in-flight video where one of the supporting captains did a PA announcing the problem and assuring passengers that the flight was stable (etc etc). However, during the video it appeared to pan towards the front of the economy cabin and it seemed to show that the cabin dividers were closed.

I guess my question is, for an aircraft in a clear emergency, is it normal to have the cabin in less than the optimal for an emergency landing - for example, having the cabin dividers in the open position?

 

[jb747]

wow! I just saw the 60 minutes report and was wondering where to ask a question so thought I would try AFF - and lo and behold - someone has just raised it!

Anyway - my question is... they showed an in-flight video where one of the supporting captains did a PA announcing the problem and assuring passengers that the flight was stable (etc etc). However, during the video it appeared to pan towards the front of the economy cabin and it seemed to show that the cabin dividers were closed.

I guess my question is, for an aircraft in a clear emergency, is it normal to have the cabin in less than the optimal for an emergency landing - for example, having the cabin dividers in the open position?

I guess you mean the curtains. They're open for take off and landing, but most likely would have been closed as soon as the seat belt sign went off, which was possibly a couple of minutes before the engine failed. Dave Evan's PA would have been quite soon after that. I'm sure the curtains would have been moved again, but I don't think they would have reached the top of the list in that time-frame.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I guess you mean the curtains. They're open for take off and landing, but most likely would have been closed as soon as the seat belt sign went off, which was possibly a couple of minutes before the engine failed. Dave Evan's PA would have been quite soon after that. I'm sure the curtains would have been moved again, but I don't think they would have reached the top of the list in that time-frame.

thanks yes I was referring to the curtains. I just thought opening the cabin up would have been almost instinct on behalf of the cabin crew, not least to ensure there was complete visibility of conditions etc etc.

 

[mjt57]

I finally got to watch the 60 Minutes segment on QF32. More visuals than the 4 Corners one, but then it was also more focused on de Crespigny rather than the team effort (CRM) that 4 Corners did.

They made it sound like the aircraft would've evaporated in a puff of smoke had he not been at the controls. Never mind that the other guys were also flat out trying to work out what the hell had happened, interrogating systems, talking to external support where possible and so on.

It was typical 60 Minutes fare; focused on visuals and emotion, less on substance.

Mind you, I'm not dismissing or trivialising the operating captain's role in it. He was, ultimately, in charge.

A question to JB: they extolled the virtues of the Airbus design and how "all hell was thrown at it". How would a B744 have fared if the same thing happened to it?

 

[jb747]

I finally got to watch the 60 Minutes segment on QF32. More visuals than the 4 Corners one, but then it was also more focused on de Crespigny rather than the team effort (CRM) that 4 Corners did.

They made it sound like the aircraft would've evaporated in a puff of smoke had he not been at the controls. Never mind that the other guys were also flat out trying to work out what the hell had happened, interrogating systems, talking to external support where possible and so on.

It was typical 60 Minutes fare; focused on visuals and emotion, less on substance.

Mind you, I'm not dismissing or trivialising the operating captain's role in it. He was, ultimately, in charge.

The reality is that Richard is the bloke who hung it all together. As far as I'm concerned, far too much has been made of the fact that two extra Captains were present. There is very little that they can actually do.

A question to JB: they extolled the virtues of the Airbus design and how "all hell was thrown at it". How would a B744 have fared if the same thing happened to it?

That's an extremely difficult question to answer, as the damage to a 747 would probably have been quite different. The partial flap loss would still have happened. Control law wouldn't have degraded. Fuel dump might have still been possible. The 747 braking and flight control system may have been less affected. Thrust management would probably have been easier. The 747 is less automated to start with, so you can't lose what you never had.

Perhaps it's fair to say that he's a huge fan of the Airbus because it saved his bacon. And perhaps I feel the same about the 744.

 

[mjt57]

The reality is that Richard is the bloke who hung it all together.

Fair enough. Someone has to be in overall command, I suppose. And it certainly sounds like he did that well. I wonder if the other captains would've tried to "suggest" things, given their normal role on the flight deck.

Certainly, where I work, if things get a bit hairy and there are bods hanging around the control room they like to get involved. Sometimes I have to be more than firm and ask them to vacate the area. Obviously Richard wouldn't have had to do that.

Control law wouldn't have degraded.

What do you mean by that, exactly. I've seen you reference the term "law" both here and in a.a on occasions.

Also, when I watched the 60 Mins report, in the simulator the camera focused on the MFDs or alarm screen, not sure which. I saw text similar to "ALT LAW (PROT)" being displayed. I'm guessing that "PROT" means protection? But what would the alarm or annunciated message have meant?

 

[jb747]

Fair enough. Someone has to be in overall command, I suppose. And it certainly sounds like he did that well. I wonder if the other captains would've tried to "suggest" things, given their normal role on the flight deck.

As check captains, their normal role on the flight deck is to watch and say nothing. Seating-wise, they would not be in optimal positions to even see what was happening (as the centre seat is taken by the SO). Any voices other than that of Richard and Matt would have been extraneous, and could well confuse the issue. 90% of the speaking would have been done by Matt, as he actioned the ECAM. RDC could stop that at any time he liked and have something else done, but it is not a time for voices from the audience. They were there as a resource that Richard could use, but how they are used is his choice. Flying is not something that is done by committee.

What do you mean by that, exactly. I've seen you reference the term "law" both here and in a.a on occasions.

Also, when I watched the 60 Mins report, in the simulator the camera focused on the MFDs or alarm screen, not sure which. I saw text similar to "ALT LAW (PROT)" being displayed. I'm guessing that "PROT" means protection? But what would the alarm or annunciated message have meant?

The 747 can't drop to a degraded law, because it doesn't actually have any laws in the first place. In Airbus speak it's always in the most degraded law (direct).

Fly by wire aircraft don't generally respond to the flight controls in the same way that non FBW aircraft do. In most cases (normal law), the aircraft has lots of protections (bank, pitch, angle of attack), and these cannot be exceeded. The aircraft will actively go back to the attitude you left it in, if displaced.

As faults occur, the laws might slowly degrade. Some offer minimal protections (alternate law 1), whilst others offer no protections (which is no different to any non FBW aircraft), but might additionally take away most of the automatics. The 32 was in alternate law 1, in which some of the protections, and the autopilot and flight director still function. Thrust was manual because a number of the engines had switched to degraded mode (which is simply a 'law' for engines).

 

[oz74]

Hi JB, Just a quick question. After an incident like QF32 would a380 crews be required to undertake more training?

Also would Richard have got a "well done" from the chief pilot?

 

[jb747]

Hi JB, Just a quick question. After an incident like QF32 would a380 crews be required to undertake more training?

After any event, the training section gleefully grabs onto the data as it comes to hand, and you just know it will appear in sims sooner or later. After the QF30, depressurisations became a lot less 'canned' and started to incorporate other simultaneous failures (there are downsides to this sort of training too). I tried the QF32 scenario (as much as the sim would accept anyway), only a couple of weeks after the event. Probably the biggest change I've seen because of these events has been an increase in compound emergencies in the sim...and again, there is a downside to this.

Would the guys themselves have to go back into the sim? Well, as they didn't screw up..I shouldn't think so. But, it has to be remembered that an event like this does have an effect upon the crew, and before they can go flying again, the Deputy Chief Pilot has to be happy about it. That could mean doing a sim, though it's likely to be quite low key.

Also would Richard have got a "well done" from the chief pilot?

Whilst I'm not privy to all of the phone calls Richard might have had, I expect he got thank you calls from many people...even above the Chief Pilot.

He (and the rest of the crew) have received QF Excel awards (that's a fairly common award within the company for a good job), the Chairman's Award (a rare award), the IFALPA Polaris Award (very rare), and "The Hugh Gordon-Burge Memorial Award" from the Guild of Air Pilots and Navigators. It was a pretty amazing event, and it was handled very well.

 

[seanpodge]

Hello. Found this tread a few days ago and have read it from start to finish. Fantastic stuff.

My qurery is about a flight I was on yesterday. I was on OZ601 which left ICN on the 31st of Jan and arrived at SYD the next morning. Departue was delayed by about 80 minutes due to snow and deicing.

Towards the end of the flight, I was looking at the flight tracker channel on my tv. We were a little inland of Newcastle when the plane performs a full 360 degree turn before continuing on to SYD on pretty much the same heading as it was on before the turn. Is there any particular reason why the pilot would've done this? This is not something i've noticed before. Being a Melbournian who mainly flies international, I'm not a regular user of SYD so I wonder if this manoeuvre was due to SYD or if it is often done at other airports too?

 

[jb747]

Hello. Found this tread a few days ago and have read it from start to finish. Fantastic stuff.

My qurery is about a flight I was on yesterday. I was on OZ601 which left ICN on the 31st of Jan and arrived at SYD the next morning. Departue was delayed by about 80 minutes due to snow and deicing.

Towards the end of the flight, I was looking at the flight tracker channel on my tv. We were a little inland of Newcastle when the plane performs a full 360 degree turn before continuing on to SYD on pretty much the same heading as it was on before the turn. Is there any particular reason why the pilot would've done this? This is not something i've noticed before. Being a Melbournian who mainly flies international, I'm not a regular user of SYD so I wonder if this manoeuvre was due to SYD or if it is often done at other airports too?

Delaying action. Basically a holding pattern. They can be at specific points and well defined, or ATC can simply have you do a pattern at some point they decide upon. Holding is common on some routes and to some destinations, and rare at others. Sydney has a lot of holding, though I'd have to admit that there seems to be less now than there was a decade ago...though I also fly into Sydney a lot less now than I did then too.

 

[seanpodge]

Delaying action. Basically a holding pattern. They can be at specific points and well defined, or ATC can simply have you do a pattern at some point they decide upon. Holding is common on some routes and to some destinations, and rare at others. Sydney has a lot of holding, though I'd have to admit that there seems to be less now than there was a decade ago...though I also fly into Sydney a lot less now than I did then too.

Thanks for that. As a follow up question, given that the flight was delayed, would SYD have basically told the pilots that since they've missed their planned arrival time that they'd have to wait for a gap or do they usually try to give delayed flights priority?

 

[jb747]

As a follow up question, given that the flight was delayed, would SYD have basically told the pilots that since they've missed their planned arrival time that they'd have to wait for a gap or do they usually try to give delayed flights priority?

They don't care what your original time was. There is basically no such thing as priority. First bloke to cross the line at (about) 200 miles to run wins.

 

[bossreggie]

I regularly fly to the UK. (LHR specifically)

Most of my flights are Ex MEL or SYD with a stop in SIN or HKG. Given the final leg into LHR is quite a long one...... How much fuel/flying time would we generally have left when we get there. Do planes coming such a long distance generally get priority over ones arriving from say, Middle East or the Americas?

I have been in a holding pattern the last couple of times and I always wondered how long we could do it for.

Thanks.


Sent from my iPad using AustFreqFly App

 

[jb747]

I regularly fly to the UK. (LHR specifically)

Most of my flights are Ex MEL or SYD with a stop in SIN or HKG. Given the final leg into LHR is quite a long one...... How much fuel/flying time would we generally have left when we get there.

When you land? Well if you fly with me, we normally have about 70+ minutes at touchdown, but legally, you only need to have 30 to dry tanks.

Do planes coming such a long distance generally get priority over ones arriving from say, Middle East or the Americas?

Nope. You're supposed to work your fuel figures backwards...start at the destination with the amount of fuel you must have, and then work back to a departure figure. Upshot is that everyone should arrive with approximately the same (minimum) fuel.

I have been in a holding pattern the last couple of times and I always wondered how long we could do it for.

To dry tanks?

When you land, you are supposed to have a minimum of 30 minutes fuel left. You'll need a tonne for the approach. Another tonne from Lambourne (the holding fix) to the start of the approach (plus another 10% of that). So, in theory, as you leave the holding fix, you could have as little as 45-50 minutes fuel remaining, and still be quite legal.

All arrivals to the UK are required to have minimum of 20 minutes holding fuel. So, as you arrive at the fix to start holding, the minimum to dry tanks would be approximately 65-70 minutes.

It is a myth that all aircraft have alternates on arrival...though in London Stansted and Gatwick are very close.

 

[Cruiser Elite]

They don't care what your original time was. There is basically no such thing as priority.

Does that apply to departures out of PEK / PVG where foreign carriers appear to me to suffer far more delays than the Chinese carriers?

 

[jb747]

Does that apply to departures out of PEK / PVG where foreign carriers appear to me to suffer far more delays than the Chinese carriers?

I haven't flown there for many years, so I can't really say. I'm sure some places have selective delays, but none of the places that I fly to show any preferences... ATC are happy to delay everybody.

 

[flychrisfly]

It is a myth that all aircraft have alternates on arrival...though in London Stansted and Gatwick are very close.

That last sentence surprised me! Could you clarify please? I thought it was a "rule" that all flights had alternates for the whole trip. Is it different aircraft type or different airlines that dictate the use, or not, of alternates? Or is it a London thing?

 

[jb747]

That last sentence surprised me! Could you clarify please? I thought it was a "rule" that all flights had alternates for the whole trip. Is it different aircraft type or different airlines that dictate the use, or not, of alternates? Or is it a London thing?

An aircraft never becomes constrained for fuel until nearing the end of the journey. For the vast majority of the flight, I'll have any number of places available. In fact I'll have so much fuel, that I'll be overweight for much of the time.

But, as you near the end of the trip, most of the fuel has been burnt, and you are falling back towards your minimum fuel. Min fuel was discussed a couple of items ago.

I need an alternate if the weather at the destination is below whatever 'alternate criteria' have been published for the airport. That will vary depending upon the equipment available on the aircraft and at the airport. If the weather is below for a nominated period on the forecast (INTER or TEMPO) then it means it will be below the criteria for 30 or 60 minute periods. I need to have either alternate fuel or holding for the nominated period. Sometimes, with a close alternate, the alternate fuel required might be less than the holding figure.

Basically though:
a) weather outright below the alternate criteria, must have an alternate
b) weather INTER below, 30 minutes holding
c) weather TEMPO below, 60 minutes holding
d) weather above the criteria. No alternate required.

Some airports have standing holding requirements in addition (most in Oz need somewhere between 10 and 20 depending upon the time of day). But that's for ATC to muck you around....

So, the rule...is a myth.

 

[oz74]

Thanks for your replies jb! Love reading them.