Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

When climbing after takeoff I have noticed that the speed slowly increases until the plane is in level flight.
How much is the climb of the plane affecting the forward speed of the plane. ie if it took longer to reach max altitude would you be flying faster over the ground and the in reverse would the opposite apply ?

I presume you're referring to the cruise when you mention level flight.

At lower levels, the aircraft speed is initially restricted as it is being cleaned up. Once the flaps are in, the next limit you normally hit is 250 kias at less than 10,000'. That's a pretty common ATC limit, though it's often removed by the controllers. If you aren't limited, you'll accelerate to about 300 kias and then maintain that until around 28-30,000' at which point you switch from an IAS target to a mach target. Holding that constant mach (which will probably be the same mach you'll use for initial climb), the IAS will slowly reduce until it normally settles at about 270 kias.

During the period that you're climbing at that constant IAS, the TAS (true airspeed) will be slowly increasing. Basically there's less air, so you have to go faster (TAS) to have the same effect on the airframe (IAS).

You can play with the conversions here: Aviation Calculator

 

[Quickstatus]

There are reasons to take off with bleed or packs off.

Take off performance eg in for high elevation, high temperature or steeper climb gradient due to obstacles? Anything else?

QF36 last ever will be as a pax as it’s the smaller Airbus?

 

[jb747]

Take off performance eg in for high elevation, high temperature or steeper climb gradient due to obstacles? Anything else?

Short runway, tail wind, weight. Basically any time the performance limiting weight is less than the actual.

QF36 last ever will be as a pax as it’s the smaller Airbus?

If I was paxing, then it wouldn't count. 35/36 is 380....at least at the moment anyway.

 

[eric2011]

But, between now and then, I've got to have an operation, not serious, but it will take me out of play for between 1 and 3 months.

Wishing you a safe operation and a quick and speedy recovery

 

[AviatorInsight]

I have to wonder about the stories about ears bleeding, etc... or perhaps that's what the media think the bleed switch will do. The reason I wonder is that I gave my passengers' ears much more of a workout than has happened here, and there were no such issues.

It still amazes me that pax still had no idea that the mask needed to go over their nose and mouth.

I'm very surprised that the rubber jungle has deployed. They didn't get over 11,000' according to FR24, and it's normally set to go in the 13-14,000' region. Presumably manually deployed, but not necessary.

This has been a big discussion for me with various checkies over the years. There’s basically two types of thinking and I can see for and against on both sides.
1. You’re over 10,000ft and the cabin altitude has gone off so you go into the memory items and it states “pass oxygen on” so regardless of your altitude, you deploy them, that’s what it says in the manual. They can’t really ping you for doing the memory items given you’re over 10,000ft.
2. You’re only over 10,000 for about 30secs and you got back down. Automatic activation is 14,000’ so no need to deploy the rubber jungle, you’ve identified the problem and fixed it. No rapid descent, horn stops going so no memory items required.

 

[flyer89]

Over the years the restrictions crept higher. I don’t recall the stages, but now it’s FL200. At that level, none of them ever disconnect the autopilot, so it’s been a terribly retrograde step as far as their long term training is concerned.

For some late night reading the other night I was perousing the QF1 report and at the time the SO control seat occupancy rules stated were not below 3000 in VMC and not below 5000 in IMC. Seems quite sensible to me but FL200 seems far too high to serve any constructive purpose.

 

[jb747]

For some late night reading the other night I was perousing the QF1 report and at the time the SO control seat occupancy rules stated were not below 3000 in VMC and not below 5000 in IMC. Seems quite sensible to me but FL200 seems far too high to serve any constructive purpose.

I agree totally.

There are some other issues that need to come into consideration. I always found that the person displaced from their seat kept a much better eye on proceedings than they would when in their seat. The same tended to apply to the PM. You expected things to go a bit pear shaped, so you were more aware... The upshot was that the entire crew were a bit more on top of things, so it was an overall positive.

It meant that SOs got to fly the aircraft (and they were mostly flying manually) right down through the configuration phase. They had to manage the energy state to get the aircraft to the right spot, at the right speed, and in the correct configuration. When they then moved to FO training, they really only had to add that last couple of thousand feet, and so most were generally well prepared for FO training, with their energy management already a normal consideration throughout the descent.

The rules have removed much of their interest....so they don't necessarily watch proceedings as well as they did in the past. Overall a terribly retrograde step, but driven by worldwide quality standards, that aren't necessarily well thought out at all.

 

[Quickstatus]

What EDTO time is required to emulate a 747 routing SYD-JNB/SCL and return (when all the 747 are eventually retired and replaced by the 787)

Also appreciate an explanation of when (during a flight) an aircraft enters EDTO. The EDTO docs mention an “EDTO entry point”. I believe this is any point in flight when the alternate aerodrome is more than 60min from the current position of the aircraft?.

When an aircraft is within EDTO, what considerations are necessary to maintain EDTO validity?.

https://www.casa.gov.au/file/105056/download?token=iwdq6K97

 

[jb747]

What EDTO time is required for an efficient routing SYD-JNB/SCL and return (when all the 747 are eventually retired and replaced by the 787)

Also appreciate an explanation of when (during a flight) an aircraft enters EDTO. The EDTO docs mention an “EDTO entry point”. I believe this is any point in flight when the alternate aerodrome is more than 60min from the current position of the aircraft?

I don't take much notice of the 787, but I think it currently has 180 minute ETOPS (or whatever it's called this week). Overseas, other regulators have given these aircraft incredibly long ETOPS allowances, even prior to entering service. CASA looks like taking a much more conservative route, so I'd not like to even take a guess at when they might gain longer allowances. Given that they've had some quite extreme engine and electrical issues, I think these regulators have been indulging in wishful thinking.

When an aircraft is within EDTO, what considerations are necessary to maintain EDTO validity?

My take on ETOPs (and remember it's 14 years since I had to consider it), is that anything that reduces my ETOPs capability, before I entered the area, would require me to remain outside of it (or to at least obey any reductions, i.e. 180 to 120). Once inside the area, with it already applying...do whatever is sensible...there's no rules forcing any particular action. In general, even though you no longer comply, it's probably best to simply continue. But, I never had to deal with 300 minute ETOPs, and that is a long time to be 'non complying'. I can see a much stronger case for diversion/return.[/quote]

 

[Quickstatus]

Thanks but what would an EDTO time be to be able to emulate a 747 routing?.
(Even if casa approves it)

 

[jb747]

I'd expect something in the order of 5 hours.

 

[Quickstatus]

I'd expect something in the order of 5 hours.

If only 3 hours was approved could you back of envelope estimate what would be the extra flight time for the SYD-JNB?

 

[flyer89]

If it’s only 3 hours could you back of envelope estimate what would be the extra flight time for the SYD-JNB?

This might be of interest....

V Australia's long-haul burden

 

[D747]

If only 3 hours was approved could you back of envelope estimate what would be the extra flight time for the SYD-JNB?

I seem to remember the VA MEL>JNB was about 2 hours longer than the QF SYD>JNB.

 

[AviatorInsight]

I seem to remember the VA MEL>JNB was about 2 hours longer than the QF SYD>JNB.

For that EDTO reason alone. CASA have and still only given VA a maximum of 180mins from an enroute alternate. Basically the track would take you from Australia northwest towards the Maldives and Diego Garcia before coming back down the coast of Africa.

 

[Quickstatus]

SYD-NKW-JNB vs SYD-JNB would be approx 1600nm difference (8500nm vs 6900nm plus the prevailing headwinds flying NW instead of heading south via Antartica...

@AviatorInsight do you remember the flight duration when VA operated to MEL-JNB?

 

[AviatorInsight]

SYD-NKW-JNB vs SYD-JNB would be approx 1600nm difference (8500nm vs 6900nm plus the prevailing headwinds flying NW instead of heading south via Antartica...

@AviatorInsight do you remember the flight duration when VA operated to MEL-JNB?

Was around the 15hr mark from memory.

 

[mjt57]

JB, last night whilst browsing YouTube, a couple of these popped up in my "you may be interested in this cough" list.

High Pressure Aviation Films

After watching the 4K quality (on an HD ATV), you so have to lash out and get some 4K GoPros for your last flights!

 

[mjt57]

And this, JB...

Rumour File: Qantas pilot Alan Cheers bids farewell after a 60-year career flying high

A Rumor File for you, perhaps?

 

[Hvr]

And this, JB...

Rumour File: Qantas pilot Alan Cheers bids farewell after a 60-year career flying high

A Rumor File for you, perhaps?

Just wait until we've purchased our tickets to make it a true AFF thank you. Would hate to see all cheap seats/redemptions gone too soon.