Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

Because I don’t have a tiller on my side .......

I've never understood why airlines buy aircraft configured like that. I didn't even realise it was an option for many years, as all of the airliners I've flown have duplicated tillers.

 

[AviatorInsight]

I've never understood why airlines buy aircraft configured like that. I didn't even realise it was an option for many years, as all of the airliners I've flown have duplicated tillers.

Definitely makes it annoying, because every Capt is different and depending on their comfort levels, it will determine when they actually take over.

MEL still uses the old NIGS on some of the E bays which is located on the Capt’s side only that sits just in front of the aerobridge and it still says B737/B727 so there's no way I'd be able to park it in that case.

 

[flyer89]

I've never understood why airlines buy aircraft configured like that. I didn't even realise it was an option for many years, as all of the airliners I've flown have duplicated tillers.

I thought the 737 didn’t have the option of a RHS tiller unlike it being more or less standard on the 747 etc. But KLM and probably others have the RHS tillers on the 737NG. It seems that a lot of airlines around the world don’t allow the FO’s to taxi even on widebodies.

 

[docjames]

As I said. Total. They can ask, and you can refuse. They could remove you, and replace you with someone else, but that's not likely to have the desired outcome, and would take hours. Nobody rides a coughpit without the Captain's approval.

For what sort of reasons would a captain refuse such a request?

 

[WheelieBagWanderer]

This was our approach, go-around and subsequent landing into SYD on QF2 last Wednesday during the fowl weather. My first landing on the east-west runway at SYD in an A380 resulted in my first go-around in an A380 - wow! Never felt power quite like that in an aircraft! It was a "late" go-around I think, as we were very close to touching down when you could feel a huge gust of wind push the aircraft left. Then the power came on and we were out of there. Amazing. We then circled out at sea whilst deciding whether to divert to MEL or try again. In the end, we got in.

Just wondering on a really windy, rainy day like that, do you take over from the auto pilot earlier than on a dry day when on approach, or leave it on as long as you can? How different is it initiating a go-around when the aircraft is on auto-pilot compared to when flying manually? Is a go-around a completely manual procedure or done by the aircraft at "the push of a button" as it were? How does it work?

I'm pretty sure the Captain's name was Cliff Bedser. Anyway, a big "thank you" to him and his crew - their skills were certainly on display last Wednesday!

 

[AviatorInsight]

For what sort of reasons would a captain refuse such a request?

Any or no reason at all can be given. Some captains just don’t like people in the jump at all. Training is another time when the jump usually won’t be given.

 

[jb747]

For what sort of reasons would a captain refuse such a request?

Don't feel like. Purple.

No reason required or given. Access to the coughpit is at the Captain's whim.

 

[jb747]

This was our approach, go-around and subsequent landing into SYD on QF2 last Wednesday during the fowl weather. My first landing on the east-west runway at SYD in an A380 resulted in my first go-around in an A380 - wow! Never felt power quite like that in an aircraft! It was a "late" go-around I think, as we were very close to touching down when you could feel a huge gust of wind push the aircraft left. Then the power came on and we were out of there. Amazing. We then circled out at sea whilst deciding whether to divert to MEL or try again. In the end, we got in.

There are a couple of different types of go around that you might have experienced. A normal go around, which can happen for any number of reasons, will have the power initially being pushed to TO/GA, but then a second or two later being reduced. The system will then target whatever power is needed for a 2,000 fpm rate of climb.

But, as it was so windy, it's likely that it was a windshear go around, in which case the power is simply left at 100%

As you'd departed Singapore, the take off power used there would have been around 70%. So now the aircraft is about 100 tonnes lighter, and you're seeing what 100% looks like.

Just wondering on a really windy, rainy day like that, do you take over from the auto pilot earlier than on a dry day when on approach, or leave it on as long as you can?

The autopilot handles wind quite well, but it's less capable with gusts. You take it off the a/p if it reaches a point at which you think you can do better...and that point varies on every approach. Personally, I'd probably take it to about 500 feet on a day like that. If you're expecting a go around, it's easier to leave it in as long as you can.

How different is it initiating a go-around when the aircraft is on auto-pilot compared to when flying manually?

You initiate the go around by pushing the thrust levers all the way forward to TO/GA. If the a/p is engaged, then it will pitch up. FO selects one stage less flap. You call what annunciations you see, and FO calls positive climb when you have it. Then gear up, and you're basically back to a take off. If you're manually flying, then you have to do the pitch up. FBW aircraft will not respond to the power increase with a pitch change, so it's a solid pull to get the rotation to about 12º. Earlier aircraft (anything non FBW), will pitch up of their own accord because of the power increase, and you'll generally find you need forward pressure to hold the target attitude.

Is a go-around a completely manual procedure or done by the aircraft at "the push of a button" as it were? How does it work?

It can be either. In a Boeing, pushing the go around switches (TO/GA) will cause the thrust levers to drive to TO/GA, and the flight directors and autopilot to pitch up. A double push on the switch will cause the aircraft to use full power, instead of the power for a 2,000 fpm target. Airbus is similar, except that it's initiated by pushing the thrust levers to their full extent. You decide on whether you want the reduced power, by pulling the power back one notch (MCT) which will give a 'soft' go around. Not really all that soft though.

AV will have to update us on the 737, but I don't think it does autopilot go arounds.

Functionally, it should be identical in both makers' aircraft, in that the thrust levers are at full extent, and either the a/p or the flight directors are commanding a pitch target for a fixed climb speed (roughly the speed you were at). The biggest difference is that you MUST have pushed the levers to the stop in an Airbus, whereas in a Boeing it's possible to have simply pushed the button, and not followed through on the levers. In that sense the AB system is safer, and that's what happened to the EK aircraft at Dubai.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Just wondering on a really windy, rainy day like that, do you take over from the auto pilot earlier than on a dry day when on approach, or leave it on as long as you can?

For me, it also depends. If I’m still not visual then I’ll leave the AP in, but I like to get a feel for the conditions especially because the 737 isn’t FBW. So if I’m visual it’ll be around 500-1000ft.

How different is it initiating a go-around when the aircraft is on auto-pilot compared to when flying manually? Is a go-around a completely manual procedure or done by the aircraft at "the push of a button" as it were?

Here’s where the 737 shows its age. So on a single channel AP (only one AP engaged) if you push TO/GA once it will give you that 1000-2000fpm rate of climb, however, the AP will disconnect (bizarre I know). If you’re doing an autoland, both AP’s need to be engaged and therefore if you hit TO/GA, the AP will remain engaged.

So the go around will be a half manual procedure, unless you have disengaged the autothrottle at the same time you disconnected the AP. In which case you will need to push the thrust levers up to the target N1 manually at the same time as watching the pitch attitude and lateral tracking.

How does it work?

So it works like this (assuming automatic flight at GA):

PF will push the TO/GA button, the thrust levers will come up to achieve a 1000-2000fpm rate of climb, the AP disconnects. PF will pitch the nose up to 12° and trim like crazy. There’s a lot of back pressure because of the thrust coming from the engines. At the same time the PF will call GA Flap 15. The PM will select the flap to 15 and call positive rate, the PF will confirm and call gear up check thrust. The PM will then confirm that enough thrust is set to achieve the minimum rate in this case.

Once everything is under control the AP can be reengaged and you can take a quick breath.

So as you can see very different and much louder than a modern airliner.

 

[WheelieBagWanderer]

Sincere thanks JB and Aviator Insight for those detailed replies. Great reading and great learning for me. Appreciate it.

 

[jb747]

Shower thoughts I guess...but amazing how life starts out as a series of firsts, but then ultimately changes to a series of lasts.

This week I've completed my last classroom day (a waste of time), and last sims. The sims have changed dramatically over the years, with the current model being an excellent learning experience...no matter how much experience you have. Sudden death has changed to repeated practice. The people who are behind those changes have thought them out well. So the sims are now almost fun (if you've done your homework).

The first sim was a recency sim, as I'd been off for two months. Basically a look at normal take off and landing, low vis, and engine out. Over in a couple of hours.

The second (which was meant to be third, but the Sydney weather stopped me from getting there) was a management exercise. Four separate scenarios (two each for Capt and FO). First was a departure from Sydney, with curfew contrains, dud taxiing instructions, runway changes, aircraft MELs, etc. All about time management and distraction. We would have made it airborne with 2 minutes to spare. Second part gave the FO a failure in flight, and wanted to see the management logic. And then a couple of arrivals, with ATC and other considerations working to muck up the energy management.

Number three was mostly a training exercise. Lots of IPs (instant positions), so scenario constantly changing. These can be quite disorienting, but it was well run, and we managed to keep on top of the plot. It started with an abort and evacuation. Then airborne, and we both flew an RNAV approach. Mine to a go around, FO to landing. Subsequently, engine failure on take off, and back for a manually flown ILS. FO flew a symmetrical 2 engines out approach and landing. Both of us flew ILS with no flight director or a/p. Somewhere in there I had an engine failure during the go around (probably off the RNAV). I also did an approach with no approach slope guidance (i.e. no aids and no PAPI).

The new fun game is engine failures at V2 on take off, or just as the power hits TO/GA on a go around. In the first case, if you aren't on top of it, you'll have a pod scrape - airborne. Senior check admitted that he had, but I managed to keep the paint intact. On the go around it was, rather surprisingly, not obvious...beautifully timed to hit at a really busy time.

Then up to altitude to look at loss of airspeed and pitot blockage events. These are quite easy...with Douglas Adams words being the guide you need. "Don't panic". Mostly doing nothing, or at the most setting 2.5º pitch and 85% power will give you a good outcome. This moved on to look at an AF447 type stall. It takes time to recover, and you need to be serious about your control inputs, but again, easily done. Last while we were up high were some unusual attitudes. FO got the standard 20º nose high or low, with lots of bank. Senior check decided to see if I remembered my fighter pilot life, and gave me some that were totally inverted, and often with substantial pitch. That cassette was still there.

Back to the runway for low vis work. So, loss of visual cues on take off, engine failure and abort, engine failure at V2. 3 engine CAT II and land, same with go around. And one more with engine failure at TO/GA. Lastly, for some reason they decided to get us to try a manual landing off the CAT II. This is not something we would do, and the SCC said that everyone he'd done it with planted the aircraft. I was no different. That was supposed to be the end of the session, but he said I couldn't have my last sim landing be a planting, so he moved us back to 1,000' and I flew one last visual approach. It wasn't too bad.

All sims done. 242 over a career. So, 968 hours of sim time.

 

[opusman]

I'll miss these sim updates. Thanks JB for sharing some of them with us!

 

[Duffa]

Staying in Queenstown with a fabulous view - Just wondering about the arrival departure procedures.
I see that both runways are used so maybe there is plenty of room - it just looks scary with all those *uck-off mountains around you...
Anyone able to enlighten me??

 

[jb747]

Staying in Queenstown with a fabulous view - Just wondering about the arrival departure procedures.
I see that both runways are used so maybe there is plenty of room - it just looks scary with all those *uck-off mountains around you...

Wonderful place. I love Queenstown.

Prior to the advent of GPS and RNAV approaches, this is the sort of place that simply couldn't reasonably have an instrument approach. These are complex approaches with many waypoints and height gates, and turns that have to be accurately flown. They require autopilot or HUD.

Most arrivals have a max of about 5 waypoints, with associated height and speed gates, mostly to set up a flow for ATC. The approach itself might have two or three waypoints, basically a start, the middle, and the missed approach point. And then there's a go around track. Queenstown looks to have about 18-20 waypoints.

This is the Queenstown 05 RNAV: http://www.aip.net.nz/pdf/NZQN_45.1_45.2.pdf

A quick search on youtube will give you some very interesting video.

 

[Quickstatus]

Can it be flown manually?

 

[jb747]

Can it be flown manually?

From what I've heard it's either flown via the autopilot, or manually if you have a HUD, but not without. I'll need to ask someone from the 737 world.

 

[Quickstatus]

So the autopilot flies the waypoints and the pilots manage the energy?

 

[jb747]

So the autopilot flies the waypoints and the pilots manage the energy?

The autopilot can hit height and speed targets too, though it doesn't manage the configuration. They aren't lateral thinkers though, so aren't good at fixing things. In the AB, once approach phase is activated, the a/p will slow to the minimum speed allowed by the flap configuration.

 

[Quickstatus]

Are there considerations for the hot summers and cold winters?
It seems the approach is restricted to a temperature range

What other aerodromes have complicated approaches. Would you consider JFK or the old Kaitak to be complicated?

 

[jb747]

Look up cold weather altimeter corrections....