Ask The Pilot

[darrend]

Controllers are often not aware of what reserves are required on a sector or approach level, it's their job to separate aircraft, end of story.

True but reserves are easily worked out on a time basis so the average controller would have some idea.

That said I know of a few stories where ATC could perhaps been a little more aware of reserves and in one case because of lack of knowledge almost contributed to a serious 747 incident at Brisbane. I was heading south to BNE (overflying) and on approach listening to the whole saga unfolding. East-West F28 nose wheel collapsed on runway - no action from ATC for a good 20 minutes (BNE was much quieter then). ATC no action to remove ac, no advice to crew until on their frequency and then told to hold (at low level). Back then 747 operator had dispensation from variable reserve, weather was CAVOK no holding requirements, was out of SYD to BNE and then onto Japan I believe - so basically very low on fuel into BNE. No chance of getting to an alternate, Captain getting a bit testy as you might imagine, demanding landing time with response from controller "we understand your situation sir" and so on. Crew eventually declared an emergency with no reserves and no options. ATC / Ground staff responded at that point and cleared the runway - dragged the F28 off.

In another case a friend was in a Bandit - destination was forecast TEMPO and he carried appropriate holding fuel. He did 2 approaches and did not get in. At that point he elected to hold because not enough fuel to get to an alternate. ATC assumed operational control and directed him to another airport that was, say 40 minutes away, he very wisely declined the directive and of course there was a report and a lot of paperwork but the point ATC neglected to take into account that 60 minutes at holding rate is less fuel than 40 minutes at cruise rate so despite the fact they had the fuel figures in front of them they did not interpret them correctly.

To be fair the two incidents above occurred a couple of decades back and things are a lot different now. But I think whether it is their job or not that knowledge is worth having because there may well be times where it comes in very handy.

 

[jb747]

It is but only when they establish that that is where you are. That took them quite a while to do though and caused considerable chaos until they established where we were.

We were (meant to be) under positive control, ontop of cloud, and in the Laverton/Point Cook area.

The dreaded stealth CT4.

 

[darrend]

I departed Essendon one day (in a jet) - 28 - "right turn contact approach". Of course right on que the transponder fails so no radar contact - that was interesting for a few minutes. Fortunately not IMC at the time.

 

[MichaelD]

What prevents someone from hopping onto a plane at night when everyone has gone home and taking it for a spin?

Do planes have keys like cars? Are the doors locked?

 

[markis10]

To be fair the two incidents above occurred a couple of decades back and things are a lot different now. But I think whether it is their job or not that knowledge is worth having because there may well be times where it comes in very handy.

Since the systems changed the knowledge is not there, the powers that be decided to remove that backup system in terms of operational control and ATC has no knowledge of fuel state AFAIK unless its volunteered by the PIC, traffic can be quite dynamic at times and unexpected holding times are a reality, sadly.

 

[darrend]

What prevents someone from hopping onto a plane at night when everyone has gone home and taking it for a spin?

Do planes have keys like cars? Are the doors locked?

Can't speak for all aircraft but certainly been my experience that the larger more sophisticated aircraft do not have keys. You would need to be fairly clued up on the ac systems to take one for spin.

 

[jb747]

What prevents someone from hopping onto a plane at night when everyone has gone home and taking it for a spin?

Many aircraft have been stolen. I suspect it's a growth industry in many places. Do a search...I can even recall a Hercules that was taken flying by a ground crew person. It didn't end well.

Big stuff? Well there are a lot of obstacles in the way. You'd need to get access to the airport for a start. Then you'll need an aircraft that is not parked against a terminal (unless you'll also nicked a tug, and know how to use it). You'd also need to remove the stairs/ladder that you use to gain access. If you get in, have the chocks removed, and have no obstacles in the way...you'd probably still be there in the morning trying to work out how to start it.

The airliners aren't fuelled after their last flight of the day. That's doesn't happen until the last hour before flight, so even if you did manage to get one going, it might not be for long.

Do planes have keys like cars? Are the doors locked?

Small aircraft, yep. Big stuff no, but you might have trouble getting up to the doors without access to a bridge or stairs...

 

[The Rok]

Many aircraft have been stolen. I suspect it's a growth industry in many places. Do a search...I can even recall a Hercules that was taken flying by a ground crew person. It didn't end well.

Big stuff? Well there are a lot of obstacles in the way. You'd need to get access to the airport for a start. Then you'll need an aircraft that is not parked against a terminal (unless you'll also nicked a tug, and know how to use it). You'd also need to remove the stairs/ladder that you use to gain access. If you get in, have the chocks removed, and have no obstacles in the way...you'd probably still be there in the morning trying to work out how to start it.

The airliners aren't fuelled after their last flight of the day. That's doesn't happen until the last hour before flight, so even if you did manage to get one going, it might not be for long.


Small aircraft, yep. Big stuff no, but you might have trouble getting up to the doors without access to a bridge or stairs...

Back in the day when I was operating machinery we were instructed to fill the fuel tank at night before parking up instead of in the morning.

The reason we were given was to prevent the build up of moisture in the tanks overnight due to the space which could get sucked into the engine.

Does the same not apply to jets?

 

[straitman]

The dreaded stealth CT4.

Before they had transponders fitted.

 

[jb747]

Back in the day when I was operating machinery we were instructed to fill the fuel tank at night before parking up instead of in the morning.

The reason we were given was to prevent the build up of moisture in the tanks overnight due to the space which could get sucked into the engine.

Does the same not apply to jets?

Whilst I'm sure it applies to some degree, the problem is simply that the engineers will never actually know what fuel is required until much closer to the next flight. And whilst there is a plan for just what jobs the aircraft will be doing, like all plans, that never survives contact with the enemy.

And, even then the fuel load is likely to be a small subset of what could actually be carried. Stick too much on, and it will have to be defuelled. And no matter how you do it, the tanks won't be filled.

Consider a 767. They can carry roughly 70 tonnes of fuel, but domestic loads would be around 12-15 tonnes. An A380 could depart Sydney with 200, 120, 100, or 25 tonnes, depending upon destination. The tanks hold 250.

 

[mosanator]

I get a sense from the "banter" here that there is no real love lost between Pilots and ATCs. ??????

Just an observation, no insult intended to either profession.

:?:

 

[Sparra]

I get a sense from the "banter" here that there is no real love lost between Pilots and ATCs. ??????

Just an observation, no insult intended to either profession.

Banter is probably a good description, that's all it is. We have different requirements and priorities but at the end of the day it's safety first.

 

[harvyk]

Knowing that a wet road can make a car far more difficult to slow down \ control, how much more difficult is it to land on a wet runway vs a dry runway, ignoring any weather conditions which is the reason the runway is wet.

When landing on a wet runway, assuming for instance that you would use Autobrakes 2 (talking B747 here, of course correct me if Autobrakes 2 is not used as a standard setting) on a dry runway, would when landing on a wet runway would a pilot continue to use Autobrakes 2 (so autobrake settings remain the same regardless of runway condition) or would they be likely to switch to Autobrakes 1 (or say 3)?

 

[jb747]

Knowing that a wet road can make a car far more difficult to slow down \ control, how much more difficult is it to land on a wet runway vs a dry runway, ignoring any weather conditions which is the reason the runway is wet.

When landing on a wet runway, assuming for instance that you would use Autobrakes 2 (talking B747 here, of course correct me if Autobrakes 2 is not used as a standard setting) on a dry runway, would when landing on a wet runway would a pilot continue to use Autobrakes 2 (so autobrake settings remain the same regardless of runway condition) or would they be likely to switch to Autobrakes 1 (or say 3)?

When you calculate the landing distance requirements, an extra 15% is allowed for a wet runway (contaminated is the next level, but then you should go somewhere else).

Where there is plenty of excess, you might leave the brake setting alone, but if you are after a target turn off (or to keep ATC happy with runway occupancy times), about one notch higher than the dry setting would be a good rule of thumb.

The autobrakes target a deceleration rate, so on a wet runway, they will ramp up as required to achieve the that target, without you having to select a higher setting.

 

[AVC]

...but the military does not work to the same rules. Over Bass Straight in a helo would be scarier.....

Hanging off the wire is scarier still. Gave it up when my daughter was born. In light of recent events, probably a good decision...

 

[jb747]

Hanging off the wire is scarier still. Gave it up when my daughter was born. In light of recent events, probably a good decision...

Did lots of that in my first life before pilots' course. I only wish I'd had access to the same sort of camera gear then, that I have now. Admittedly a bad place if something goes wrong, but when you're 21, what can go wrong?

 

[AVC]

but when you're 21, what can go wrong?

ROFL! Amen to that.

Ah yes, the good old digital camera. I use my phone as a camera more than a phone these days. If only I carried one about in those days. There'd be some interesting action shots.

 

[markis10]

I get a sense from the "banter" here that there is no real love lost between Pilots and ATCs. ??????

Just an observation, no insult intended to either profession.

:?:

They are natural opponents to a certain extent, however ATCs in general have a great respect for Pilots while at the same time many of them (myself included), are pilots themselves with quite a lot of experience. Having said that, like any workplace not everyone is at the same level of expertise, and sometimes things are done that dont make sense!

 

[led-zep]

A few questions since my recent travels to Seoul..

Does the pilot make most of the decisions to stay at a certain altitude? EG we where about 2 hours from Seoul when i noticed on the flight status, the pilot slowed the plane down (form 900km/h to around 750-800km/h) and on the way back to sydney we spent most of the flight at 31500 feet, and only went to around 37000 feet within 3 hours of sydney..who makes that call and why wasn't the pilot flying at 38000 feet?

Do pilots have their phones switched on in the coughpit? By turned on i mean either fully on or in flightmode?

How dangerous is taking off when it is snowing? I noticed a few flights that kept going, even though it was snowing (farily light falls however).

Cheers!

 

[darrend]

A few questions since my recent travels to Seoul..

Does the pilot make most of the decisions to stay at a certain altitude? EG we where about 2 hours from Seoul when i noticed on the flight status, the pilot slowed the plane down (form 900km/h to around 750-800km/h) and on the way back to sydney we spent most of the flight at 31500 feet, and only went to around 37000 feet within 3 hours of sydney..who makes that call and why wasn't the pilot flying at 38000 feet?

Do pilots have their phones switched on in the coughpit? By turned on i mean either fully on or in flightmode?

How dangerous is taking off when it is snowing? I noticed a few flights that kept going, even though it was snowing (farily light falls however).

Cheers!

Ultimately everything is the pilots decision however there are a lot of things around that, e.g. Aircraft performance, ATC requirements, wind, turbulance, SOP's to name but a few. All things being equal though an aircraft will fly as high as possible which is limited by weight. As fuel is burned the aircraft weight reduces and is capable of climbing. Cruise altitudes are dictated mostly by the direction of travel and the same altitudes are not available in recipricol directions so 37000 one way 38000 the other. If traffic is light then it is possible to get a block of altitude to operate in and climb progressively as weight reduces.

Ground speed generally reduces with a headwind, for operational reasons e.g. ATC traffic requirements or on descent. Depending on the time of day the aircraft may have been slowed to meet a slot time or adhere to noise abatement requirements or just a stronger head wind component was being experienced.

Do pilots have their phones switched on in the coughpit - pretty much subject to the same requirements as PAX though electronics devices can be approved though this is a costly exercise so extra electronics devices are generally out. Data links and radio alleviate the need to use phones - besides which cell phones don't work very well when they can "see" multiple cell sites and the limited RF power from the phone soon precludes any communication with the cell sites as the aircraft climbs and moves away from built up areas.