Ask The Pilot

[Flashback]

Or maybe if someone somehow manages to get into the coughpit?

 

[AviatorInsight]

Or maybe if someone somehow manages to get into the coughpit?

If someone manages to get through to the flight deck they won’t have wrists to cuff...

 

[Captain Halliday]

The only reason I can see is if we’re paxing.

Perhaps if an incident were to occur while you are in the loo, or crew rest, or for any other reason not in the flight deck.

 

[odysseus]

If you moved the LCCs, then you would have no issues with slots at Melbourne.

Pity those who would be connecting on to Jetstar...

 

[AviatorInsight]

Perhaps if an incident were to occur while you are in the loo, or crew rest, or for any other reason not in the flight deck.

If I'm on operational duty then I would not be involved in the cuffing at all. Positioning duties means the crew are able to use me as an ABP (able bodied person) to assist.

 

[pjm99au]

Wondering how this locked out situation could occur and how they got the window open.

 

[jb747]

Wondering how this locked out situation could occur and how they got the window open.

I haven’t heard of it happening for quite a while, but there were some lockouts in the early days of the security coughpit doors, generally just after they’d been fitted. The lesson is simple enough...if you’re an engineer, and have cause to test the door lock, make sure there’s someone on both sides.

I have no idea how they could have opened the window from the outside, and would probably suggest that it might have already been open.

The engineers have another way of opening the doors, which I won’t discuss here...but it’s a lot less dangerous than what we’re seeing here.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Wondering how this locked out situation could occur and how they got the window open.

Another great feature of the 737. Only the FO’s window can be opened from the outside.

 

[docjames]

Absolutely agree. Jetstar uses Avalon for a limited number of services however many domestic services could use Avalon airport and it is connected to the city by train which is more that can be said about Tullamarine.

Without wandering too far off topic, AVV isnt what most would consider "connected" by train.

You'll note the airport website doesnt list it as an option
Getting Here

Lara station is the closest (>5km) and the alternative is the shuttle bus from Geelong CBD Tain station (cheaper than the cab to Lara station!).

So it's really no more "connected" by train than MEL.

 

[straitman]

Without wandering too far off topic, AVV isnt what most would consider "connected" by train.

You'll note the airport website doesnt list it as an option
Getting Here

Lara station is the closest (>5km) and the alternative is the shuttle bus from Geelong CBD Tain station (cheaper than the cab to Lara station!).

So it's really no more "connected" by train than MEL.

Taxi from Lara?

 

[docjames]

Taxi from Lara?

I was thinking more airport to station, but yes, but it's Geelong Radio Cabs so there may not be one in the area and you may have to wait a while. Uber a similar issue.


Anyway, the point was, train to/from AVV isn't really viable until they build a direct (branch) line closer to the airport. But given it's taking and eternity to get one to MEL, i wont hold my breath expecting AVV to get one.

The only alternative I can see would be a shuttle bus between the train station AVV that ran regularly (or a monorail).

 

[Melburnian1]

Ah...the "splash and dash". That's one of those throw away lines, that refers to a particular type of diversion...which isn't applicable in about 90% of cases. Generally, it comes up on long flights (for instance LAX-MEL), where you are unable to carry the required fuel for Melbourne. You could press as far as possible, before admitting defeat and returning to Sydney, or (if really lucky) having the requirements disappear and continuing to destination. It's a game of odds...what is the likelihood of either outcome? If you consider the diversion option to be the most likely outcome, you could, early in the flight, increase the speed to the max. Fuel consumption won't be an issue, because you are making your destination Brisbane. Call ahead, get everyone ready to turn the aircraft around as quickly as possible.... You could be in, and out, in about 30-40 minutes. You will still be late in Melbourne, but way better than the return to Sydney option.

To be legal for a flight, you have to carry any fuel that is both normally carried, and any extra required by weather or NOTAMs. That may mean holding fuel, or diversion fuel. Companies go to great lengths to find ways of carrying as little as possible, whilst being legal. The trouble is that being legal, and carrying a sensible amount of fuel aren't often the same. In this case, a look at the weather would have most pilots loading both fuel for an alternate, and also for substantial holding. You just know that you'll be held even if you aren't directly affected by the weather....and you'll need to keep that alternate fuel in the tanks. But, company dispatchers will simply give you what is legal...and if you suddenly need 60 minutes on top of that, then too bad.

Reading this a few months later, it would have to be one of jb747's best contributions. Most interesting.

 

[straitman]

I was thinking more airport to station, but yes, but it's Geelong Radio Cabs so there may not be one in the area and you may have to wait a while. Uber a similar issue.


Anyway, the point was, train to/from AVV isn't really viable until they build a direct (branch) line closer to the airport. But given it's taking and eternity to get one to MEL, i wont hold my breath expecting AVV to get one.

The only alternative I can see would be a shuttle bus between the train station AVV that ran regularly (or a monorail).

There is already Skybus from Southern Cross station.

 

[serfty]

There is already Skybus from Southern Cross station.

Quite the staggered timetable: SkyBus - Avalon City Express timetable

 

[Himeno]

Quite the staggered timetable: SkyBus - Avalon City Express timetable

That timetable is designed based on the flight times at AVV.

 

[serfty]

That timetable is designed based on the flight times at AVV.

I understood that ... noting three buses each way with 20 minutes of each other matching a current widebody flight.

 

[JessicaTam]

[mod hat]
Please keep discussion to the purpose of the thread.
[/mod hat]

 

[Quickstatus]

Sitting in the seat indicated by your boarding pass....



Investigation: AI-2015-139 - Multiple passenger loading events involving Airbus A320 and A321 aircraft

The above article suggests the rotation of aircraft is very sensitive to position of CoG. But is the mis-positioning of 6 pax @80kg = 480kg enough to cause such issues?

 

[SenZubEanS]

It's now officially the 20th. The start of your final trip JB. Must admit, seeing i've never had the pleasure to meet you, I was still really sad to read that your amazing career is coming to a close. I am sure you are looking forward to retirement no doubt, but I hope that this last trip to LHR is memorable (although un-eventful). Cheers!

 

[jb747]

Sitting in the seat indicated by your boarding pass....

View attachment 150587

Investigation: AI-2015-139 - Multiple passenger loading events involving Airbus A320 and A321 aircraft

The above article suggests the rotation of aircraft is very sensitive to position of CoG. But is the mis-positioning of 6 pax @80kg = 480kg enough to cause such issues?

It's all about moment arm. Moving six passengers from in front of the CoG (where they are having a nose down effect) to well aft would have a measurable affect in any aircraft. So, if they were originally 10 metres in front, they'd be giving a nose down moment of (6*80kg*10m)...4800 kg-m (nose down). By moving that same group to 20 metres aft of the CofG, I'd get (6*80*20) 9600 kg-m nose up. Adding the two effects would give a total nose up change of 14400 kg-m. You can play with that number a lot of ways, but, it would be the same as moving a much larger group, a shorter distance.....or putting one person on a plank out the tail....about 200 metres back. (BTW, they probably aren't the correct units, but it's early Sunday morning, and physics was a long time ago).

The horizontal tail on an aircraft generates a downward force, i.e. negative lift, to balance out the machine. That's effectively weight that the wing then has to carry, which in turn generates more drag. So, for reasons of efficiency, designers try to balance the aircraft in such a way that the amount of negative lift that is needed is minimal. Make it too low though, and the aircraft will become unstable in pitch, i.e. unflyable. Some military aircraft are minimally stable (but are flown by aggressive fly by wire systems), as this allows a better initial pitch rate in a dog fight. In these aircraft, loss of the FBW system will result in loss of the aircraft. You can provide the needed force by positioning the horizontal stabiliser ahead of the wing (canards), but these provide major packaging issues for airliners, and have not been embraced. In flight, fuel is often used to change the pitch trim in such a way that the force needed from the stabiliser is minimised.