Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

The runway numbering system is simply the magnetic heading of the runway, divided by 10. The upshot of that is that as the magnetic field varies over the years, some runways actually have a change of name, whilst others may drift away from what would be the correct title. To reduce confusion, the numbers can also be arbitrary changed. LAX is an example of this, where 24L/R are the same track as 25 L/R.

Confusion can exist any time there is a choice. It pretty much doesn't matter what that choice is. If you see a runway, and get it into your head that that is the one you want, then I expect that some people won't be swayed by any amount of reason or sense. Wrong numbers...wrong direction, mixing left and right, or runway for taxiway. All of these errors have been made innumerable times. I've even heard of wrong aircraft carrier. Wrong airport isn't unknown either.

In the tape the flight crew just sound appalling. They manage to confuse ATC, whose calls are generally a sensible attempt to fix the mess being made by the flight crew.

 

[badseed]

Wrong airport isn't unknown either.

That reminded me of the time a few years back an Air India 787 was lined up with runway 35 at Essendon, instead of 34 at Tullamarine: Incident: Air India B788 at Melbourne on Jan 14th 2014, nearly landed on small airport

As a question - I'm interested in incidents that occur below levels of severity where they need to be mandatorily reported. Are airlines (in your experience) good at encouraging and then distributing this kind of knowledge? From what I've read the aircraft systems often report directly back to the manufacturers too, but I'm also interested in how the human performance aspect is handled (e.g. learning from human mistakes).

 

[AviatorInsight]

That reminded me of the time a few years back an Air India 787 was lined up with runway 35 at Essendon, instead of 34 at Tullamarine: Incident: Air India B788 at Melbourne on Jan 14th 2014, nearly landed on small airport

As a question - I'm interested in incidents that occur below levels of severity where they need to be mandatorily reported. Are airlines (in your experience) good at encouraging and then distributing this kind of knowledge? From what I've read the aircraft systems often report directly back to the manufacturers too, but I'm also interested in how the human performance aspect is handled (e.g. learning from human mistakes).

Airlines have what’s known as a just culture where the reporting of errors will not result in disciplinary action. However reckless and unjustifiable risks will not be tolerated. VA are good at supporting crew when errors are made as long as they are reported. I’ve only had to make a couple of reports and have never received a phone call for a “please explain”.

 

[mjt57]

VA are good at supporting crew when errors are made as long as they are reported. I’ve only had to make a couple of reports and have never received a phone call for a “please explain”.

And it's listed as one of the safest airlines with which to travel, in a newspaper article yesterday.
The flight home on VA24 was a good one, btw, although we heard very little from the tech crew. Most announcements were made via the FM (as the FAs who refered to her).

 

[AviatorInsight]

And it's listed as one of the safest airlines with which to travel, in a newspaper article yesterday.
The flight home on VA24 was a good one, btw, although we heard very little from the tech crew. Most announcements were made via the FM (as the FAs who refered to her).

There will really only be two announcements made by tech crew at VAI. The pre departure PA and the top of descent PA, not including any turbulence PAs made in flight. At domestic there’s a lot more that can and does go wrong so you’ll find there’s a lot more PAs made.

 

[jb747]

That reminded me of the time a few years back an Air India 787 was lined up with runway 35 at Essendon, instead of 34 at Tullamarine: Incident: Air India B788 at Melbourne on Jan 14th 2014, nearly landed on small airport

I really have to wonder how they managed that in a modern aircraft. That particular mob is very high on my "don't fly list". Saw them come very close to lopping the tail of a domestic aircraft at Tulla. We couldn't believe what we were seeing, but even more amazing was that he continued, even though we told him he did not have clearance. Actually that's exactly the same behaviour I've seen from Asiana!

As a question - I'm interested in incidents that occur below levels of severity where they need to be mandatorily reported. Are airlines (in your experience) good at encouraging and then distributing this kind of knowledge? From what I've read the aircraft systems often report directly back to the manufacturers too, but I'm also interested in how the human performance aspect is handled (e.g. learning from human mistakes).

There is internal reporting. It's generally better to be the the one ringing the fleet manager, rather than having him ring you. Distribution of information used to be very good, but sadly has now been almost totally curtailed.

 

[jb747]

Oh, I asked about the pitot covers...and none of the engineers had ever heard of ones meant to melt free. By the same token, they are virtually never installed at Melbourne, so perhaps not surprising.

 

[flyer89]

Accident: Capital Beijing A320 at Macau on Aug 28th 2018, dropped nose wheels on hard touchdown

This is not a good look....

 

[casanovawa]

The hurdle that would stop most is actually the very first one. I've been asked this question quite a few times, by cabin crew, over the years. All have the idea that if they can get in touch with someone, then they might have a chance. So, I've simply asked them to select the switch that they will press to call for help. The favourite choice has been the autopilot disconnect.

A passenger with some flying time would have a chance. The more flying time the better. Even some of the gamers would have a fair chance, but in their case only if they could keep the autopilot engaged. I've given a mate who falls into the category of very avid flight simmer a go in the 747-400 sim. I think it's fair to say that he didn't do as well as he'd hoped, but he did somewhat better than I expected.

The obvious take away message from this, short of making the intercom button the most prominent button and hiding the auto-pilot disconnect button on the back of the yolk, is to have a short coaching video specific to the particular aircraft type on the IFE system basically running through how to fly the plane if the pilots become incapacitated, starting of with how and why not to turn of the auto pilot!!

If this was thought to be potentially a little confronting to passengers and/or revealing basic flight training to any nefarious types then the same short video (with further modules such as barrel roles and buzzing the tower ) could be held on several of the FA's/CSM iPads…. This could be combined with having a very short, very high vis coloured manual prominently displayed in the coughpit, a sort of break in emergency/READ THIS FIRST type arrangement, that could assist anyone other than a pilot putting their hand up to have a crack at saving the day....

 

[harvyk]

The obvious take away message from this, short of making the intercom button the most prominent button and hiding the auto-pilot disconnect button on the back of the yolk, is to have a short coaching video specific to the particular aircraft type on the IFE system basically running through how to fly the plane if the pilots become incapacitated, starting of with how and why not to turn of the auto pilot!!

If this was thought to be potentially a little confronting to passengers and/or revealing basic flight training to any nefarious types then the same short video (with further modules such as barrel roles and buzzing the tower ) could be held on several of the FA's/CSM iPads…. This could be combined with having a very short, very high vis coloured manual prominently displayed in the coughpit, a sort of break in emergency/READ THIS FIRST type arrangement, that could assist anyone other than a pilot putting their hand up to have a crack at saving the day....

Two things spring to mind,

1. I don't believe there has even been an event which has taken out both (or all) pilots leaving only pax to land the plane. The only ones I can think of have been in light aircraft where the pax already had a pilots license and one case where an FA took over the position of F/O (again they themselves had a pilots license)

2. I know my way around a 747 coughpit (and have my own copy of the manuals and procedures thanks to a friend of mine), and am quite comfortable in one (both real and sim, although the real ones have never been moving ), and yet there is a massive difference between sitting in a coughpit in a sim where if you make a mistake it doesn't matter vs sitting in a coughpit in the real thing. Despite how comfortable I am with where things are in a 747 coughpit, if I was ever placed into a 747 mid flight and told to land it or we all die, I'd be coughping myself, despite already knowing which button to press to talk to ATC, and how to turn the A/P off and more importantly back on.

Of course IMHO this is probably getting to the point that these posts should be moved into their own thread.

 

[jb747]

The obvious take away message from this, short of making the intercom button the most prominent button and hiding the auto-pilot disconnect button on the back of the yolk, is to have a short coaching video specific to the particular aircraft type on the IFE system basically running through how to fly the plane if the pilots become incapacitated, starting of with how and why not to turn of the auto pilot!!

All utterly pointless. The radio control panel (intercom won’t do you much good) has about 40 buttons on it.

We amused ourselves on one trip attempting to write a checklist that someone could follow. We gave up. Too many points that required prior knowledge.

Go back to the bar. Get a drink. Find a 16 year old flight simmer. Get another drink.

 

[jb747]

Accident: Capital Beijing A320 at Macau on Aug 28th 2018, dropped nose wheels on hard touchdown

This is not a good look....

Have a look on YouTube.. do a search for aircraft porpoising.

 

[flyer89]

Have a look on YouTube.. do a search for aircraft porpoising

There’s a now famous video of KAL landing at Narita a few years ago that is simply horrendous. However, I had actually never looked up when it happens to light aircraft. Interesting.

 

[jb747]

Narita can be an absolute shocker of a place to land. Thankfully, most of my flights there were in the 767, which is still my favourite aircraft in gusty crosswinds.

 

[flyer89]

Narita can be an absolute shocker of a place to land. Thankfully, most of my flights there were in the 767, which is still my favourite aircraft in gusty crosswinds.

I’ve heard the A380 can be a PITA? How did the 744 handle?

 

[Captain Halliday]

As a side note, there's a rumour floating around BNE engineers that Boeing pitot covers were left on (as they are actually heat resistant when switched on). Apparently Airbus covers are designed to melt in such a case.

ATSB Prelim report Investigation: AO-2018-053 - Airspeed indication failure on take-off involving Airbus A330, 9M-MTK, Brisbane Airport, Queensland, on 18 July 2018.

Confirms Airbus Pitot covers, not Boeing. There’s a pic of them too. They didn’t melt, but the tubes had begun to burn holes in them.

 

[Himeno]

Narita can be an absolute shocker of a place to land. Thankfully, most of my flights there were in the 767, which is still my favourite aircraft in gusty crosswinds.

Would NRT be better if it didn't have the issues related to land ownership and the still lingering disputes over building the airport in the first place, which have resulted in things like 'bent' taxiways and a runway cut short by a farm?

 

[juddles]

Pilots, a question that is curiosity, and I hope you can fathom the convoluted format:

This is about fuel burn with "excess weight", long haul. Let's nominate a 12 hr flight. I am aware that with extra weight, a flight with extra weight burns more fuel. But my question is the mechanics of this. So taking said long-haul flight, in what manner do you burn more fuel?

(a) same flight time(speed), but angle of attack harder/higher drag/higher revs on engines/greater fuel burn?
(b) same revs/fuel burn per hour/but longer flight time(slower speed) = higher fuel consumption?
(c) different altitudes/time/engine usage or combo of such?

 

[jb747]

Pilots, a question that is curiosity, and I hope you can fathom the convoluted format:

This is about fuel burn with "excess weight", long haul. Let's nominate a 12 hr flight. I am aware that with extra weight, a flight with extra weight burns more fuel. But my question is the mechanics of this. So taking said long-haul flight, in what manner do you burn more fuel?

(a) same flight time(speed), but angle of attack harder/higher drag/higher revs on engines/greater fuel burn?
(b) same revs/fuel burn per hour/but longer flight time(slower speed) = higher fuel consumption?
(c) different altitudes/time/engine usage or combo of such?

Basically, you need to produce sufficient lift to offset whatever the aircraft weighs. So, literally by trial and error, you'll find an angle of attack that produces that lift. You'll then use whatever power is necessary to maintain that target speed. More weight will need more lift. More lift will mean more drag. More drag, more power, and so higher fuel flow.

As an aircraft gets heavier, you'll normally fly at a faster speed (in IAS or mach terms), but also at a lower altitude.

 

[jb747]

For those who keep an eye on my roster, I've just been removed from the 35/36 on Wednesday/Thursday next week. The trip is being used for training.