Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

JB, now that you've retired, what QF perks are you entitled to?

I still have access so staff travel at some level, but at a much lower priority than I had whilst still employed.

 

[jb747]

From today's NZ Herald

"Our national carrier has been struck by its second turnaround drama within a week.

Air New Zealand Flight 289 [from AKL] was forced to turn back midway through its flight to Shanghai last night, according to passenger Eric Hundman.

Hundman, an assistant professor at NYU's Shanghai campus, told the Herald the flight took off from Auckland as scheduled close to midnight last night but "midway through our flight, the pilot informs us that Chinese authorities had not given this plane permission to land, so we needed to turn around. A permitting issue, supposedly," he said."

Have any pilots seen this issue before? Is there more to see do you think?

I haven’t seen it first hand, but I’ve heard of it happening to QF aircraft. Not so bad that they have to turn around, but cases where overflight clearance has not been granted by ATC, and the aircraft as simply not been allowed to enter the airspace. The most recent that I’ve heard of was an aircraft coming back through Russia. In every case that I have heard of, the airline had the correct paperwork, but somehow that hadn’t filtered to the controllers.

If it doesn’t involve your destination, a reroute can solve the problem...if you have enough fuel to allow it.

 

[Waynos]

Hi All,

Recent PER to LHR round trip in 787-9 upon descent the behaviour I noticed(in lay person terms) was engine noise would increase followed by drops in altitude.This would be repeated about 3 - 4 times before final approach.
I do know that the 787 flies at a higher altitude(40k ft) so this might have something to do with it.
Also found it interesting that on one occasion after take off the captain mentioned that once we burn more fuel we'll be able to climb from 30k to 40k ft........

I would be very interested to hear the reason behind my observation regarding descent.

Thank you.

 

[jb747]

Over the years on this thread you've commented many times that some of the major carriers that are generally well regarded by the public are actually problematic operations. Your employment status obviously prevented you from coming right out and saying what was what, although I did feel like you were dropping the odd clue from time to time and certainly got more blunt in recent months.

Now you're a free agent, can you give us your personal no fly list and are there any big names that would surprise us you'd be hesitant to fly with?

Is there any point? At times in the past I’ve made a few remarks that were pretty pointed, only to have someone immediately come back and tell me how wonderful their flight with airline X was.

I’ll admit that it’s all very much shades of grey, and all airlines have both good, and bad, operators. One marker that I’ve always used is an airline’s response to any event. Those that fix the problem by firing the pilots have not fixed anything. The Middle East seems to offer us that response fairly regularly. Asiana had a go at killing me, which I took rather personally, so they are so far down the list that I’m not even sure I’m spelling their name correctly.

 

[jb747]

Recent PER to LHR round trip in 787-9 upon descent the behaviour I noticed(in lay person terms) was engine noise would increase followed by drops in altitude.This would be repeated about 3 - 4 times before final approach.

Descents are very rarely continuous. Most consist of descents of a few thousand feet, then level for a while....repeat. That’s especially the case near London, where many of the descents will only be for a thousand feet or so. It’s all just ATC fitting you into their flow...and also the flow for the many other airports around London.

I do know that the 787 flies at a higher altitude(40k ft) so this might have something to do with it.

Does it really? Sounds like marketing to me.... But, no, it has little to do with the descent profile, other than making it about 30 miles longer.

Also found it interesting that on one occasion after take off the captain mentioned that once we burn more fuel we'll be able to climb from 30k to 40k ft........

I expect that the relationship between weight and optimum altitude has been covered somewhere in these pages. But, basically unless operating a short leg, an airliner will be thrust limited to about FL330 after take off. As it burns off fuel, less power will be required, and eventually enough margin will appear to allow the climb to the next step (generally 2,000’ higher). Higher altitudes will normally give better fuel flow, but a slower ground speed...so higher is really for the accountants.

It’s more complicated than just thrust. Stall speed, and minimum drag speed, as well as maximum Mach number also get into the equation. The upshot though, is that the lighter you are, the higher you can get.

 

[Waynos]

JB thanks for the response.
Why wouldn't higher altitude mean faster ground speed?

 

[jb747]

JB thanks for the response.
Why wouldn't higher altitude mean faster ground speed?

Like everything in aviation, the answer is maybe.

At a given mach number, you’ll be fastest at about FL280. So, if the crew are really trying to make up time, they’ll go relatively low, and as fast as the fuel allows.

When aircraft are held below their target altitude, if they are flying a ‘cost index’, then the upshot will be that the aircraft flies at a lower mach number. The IAS that you are flying reduces during the flight, as your height increases, even though you may be flying a reasonably constant mach, at each target altitude. As the weight reduces, you either need to slowly climb, or at a fixed altitude, to reduce the speed. Going higher allows you to go back to your normal target speed.

Ground speed has nothing to do with your height, and is simply the vector sum of your TAS and the wind. Going lower can give a better ground speed.

 

[Waynos]

Ok thanks for that clarification JB. So I'm assuming that as weight reduces and you remain at fixed altitude, the reason you need to reduce speed is to save fuel?
I am also assuming that when deciding to climb higher(with the aim of returning to target speed) that speed would need to be physically decreased via the controls else higher altitude = thinner air = less resistance = increase in speed...?

I do recall on a few occasions the sensation of an increase in speed while at the same time feeling like we're decreasing altitude. Best way to describe this is a feeling like the nose of aircraft is slightly angled downwards while picking up speed. I wonder whether this could be the lower altitude = faster speed scenario you refer to.

Please excuse my newbie questions...

 

[lastrow]

My question is about crew lay over proceedures. Assuming that a flight has reached LHR and the crew ia out of hours. As often observed the crew head en masse to an appointed hotel.
Questions
Does another crew arrive to staff the aircraft or does it wait for the resting crew?
How long is the rest period? Do crew members have to keep a log of their rest hours ?
Are crew members confined to their hotel or can they go 'out on the town' ?
Does the flight deck crew stay at the same hotel in the same level of accomodation ?

 

[jb747]

Ok thanks for that clarification JB. So I'm assuming that as weight reduces and you remain at fixed altitude, the reason you need to reduce speed is to save fuel?
I am also assuming that when deciding to climb higher(with the aim of returning to target speed) that speed would need to be physically decreased via the controls else higher altitude = thinner air = less resistance = increase in speed...?

I do recall on a few occasions the sensation of an increase in speed while at the same time feeling like we're decreasing altitude. Best way to describe this is a feeling like the nose of aircraft is slightly angled downwards while picking up speed. I wonder whether this could be the lower altitude = faster speed scenario you refer to.

If I remain at a fixed altitude and speed, as the weight reduces, I’ll need less lift to stay there. That means less angle of attack. Less drag. Less power. But, it also means that I’ll need and angle of attack that is less efficient, and a power setting that is also not the best. Optimum altitude will give, for a fleeting moment, a confluence, of best angle of attack and best power setting...for the rest of the time, we chase that.

Now...this is instrument flying 101. Anything you ‘feel’ in an aircraft is likely to be TOTALLY false. I could roll the aircraft onto its back, and you would not notice. Equally, with it straight and level, I could convince you that we are pitching up rapidly. Instrument flying is difficult for a number of reasons, but the most dangerous is not that you won’t understand the displays, but rather that you’ll disregard what you see and fall back on eons of evolution, and go with what you feel. The non instrument rated pilot who suddenly finds himself in cloud has about 30 seconds to live....

 

[jb747]

My question is about crew lay over proceedures. Assuming that a flight has reached LHR and the crew ia out of hours. As often observed the crew head en masse to an appointed hotel.

Crews are often out of hours at the end of a duty. That’s quite normal.

Does another crew arrive to staff the aircraft or does it wait for the resting crew?

As we are talking London, the aircraft will be planned to depart about 12 hours or so after arrival. That time is used for maintenance. The arriving crew consisted of pilots, who have come from Australia, and cabin crew, who are London based. The pilots cannot be used for a minimum of about 18 hours (and it could be longer) after their arrival. That will vary, and most would refuse any early contact. The slips are planned as about 60 hours, and sometimes come back to 36.

How long is the rest period?

There is no fixed answer. It could be as short as 8 hours, or as long as 24.

Do crew members have to keep a log of their rest hours ?

Of course not. How could you possibly do that. Anyway, if airlines honestly recorded their crews rest, very few long haul flights would ever depart.

Are crew members confined to their hotel or can they go 'out on the town' ?

Crews can do whatever they like when not on duty. As can anyone in any job.

Does the flight deck crew stay at the same hotel in the same level of accomodation ?

As the cabin crew? Sometimes. The issue is that most hotel aren’t interested in giving away the number of rooms required to accommodate everyone.

If this question is about fatigue...you end up totally shattered. You can’t sleep in most hotels, because either the other guests aren’t quiet, or the staff aren’t (always). Doors never close quietly. You never get a decent sleep (it’s never at night) on the ground, and only fleeting time in the air. When you go on leave, you wonder why you feel so strange after a couple of weeks...as you start to have a normal sleep cycle.

 

[Quickstatus]

That will vary, and most would refuse any early contact.

meaning the pilots can turn off their phones and "disappear" for a certain period of time?

 

[jb747]

meaning the pilots can turn off their phones and "disappear" for a certain period of time?

No. It means you answer the phone, and simply state whether you can, or cannot, operate. You are not on duty, or standby. You manage your sleep to get over the duty you’ve done, and also to prepare for the planned duty. A sudden change to the plan may preclude recovery or adequate rest.

 

[flyer89]

JB,

A rather specific question but when you were undertaking command training, given the captain has authority over whether to reject the takeoff was it treated as if you were one and had that authority or was it the training captain who still had the authority from the RHS?

 

[jb747]

A rather specific question but when you were undertaking command training, given the captain has authority over whether to reject the takeoff was it treated as if you were one and had that authority or was it the training captain who still had the authority from the RHS?

The trainee does everything as if he’s already checked out. If you decide to abort, then that’s it. If you decided to go, he could theoretically overrule you, but he’d have to take over to do so.

They want to see you thinking as a Captain, and not relying at all on the instructor.

 

[mikenz]

Why is the QF 787 cabin crew based in the UK? My first guess would be cost.
Do QF have any other overseas-based crew? Singapore?

 

[Himeno]

Why is the QF 787 cabin crew based in the UK? My first guess would be cost.
Do QF have any other overseas-based crew? Singapore?

LHR based cabin crew have done the LHR sectors of QF flights for quite some time. They currently do LHR-PER and LHR-SIN.
They have the Jetconnect crew base in NZ.
IIRC, the other overseas crew bases were closed.

 

[harvyk]

A couple of weeks ago I was flying out of MEL during a pretty big thunderstorm. There was lighting in the area (they had to close the ramp a couple of times which delayed us). Just after we'd left the ground as the wheels where coming up I heard a massively (and unusually) loud bang. I usually sit in the exit rows of 737's and I'm quite used to the noises which planes make (and the general timings of those noises at least on 737's) as wheels come up.

I'm thinking that the plane was struck by lighting on take off, but there was no PA and the plane continued onto CBR (it was very bumpy ride and they weren't sure if the FA's would be able to do any sort of meal / drinks service).

Is that the sort of noise which planes make when struck by lighting? Also I'm guessing that if it was struck by lighting company procedures (QF or VA) would be to say nothing about it unless they felt they needed to divert?

 

[jb747]

A couple of weeks ago I was flying out of MEL during a pretty big thunderstorm. There was lighting in the area (they had to close the ramp a couple of times which delayed us). Just after we'd left the ground as the wheels where coming up I heard a massively (and unusually) loud bang. I usually sit in the exit rows of 737's and I'm quite used to the noises which planes make (and the general timings of those noises at least on 737's) as wheels come up.

I'm thinking that the plane was struck by lighting on take off, but there was no PA and the plane continued onto CBR (it was very bumpy ride and they weren't sure if the FA's would be able to do any sort of meal / drinks service).

Is that the sort of noise which planes make when struck by lighting? Also I'm guessing that if it was struck by lighting company procedures (QF or VA) would be to say nothing about it unless they felt they needed to divert?

The sound is exactly the same as a close strike when you aren’t in an aircraft. Only louder. On the other hand, it may have been the wheels falling off, but I guess you’d have noticed that later.

There is no company procedure that would preclude you saying something to the passengers. Actually, there are very few procedures in that regard.

A diversion from a lightning strike is very unlikely, at least in the older aircraft. I’ve been hit many times in the 767 and 747, and neither aircraft suffered any damage. I’m told that that 787 and it’s ilk don’t fare as well.

 

[lastrow]

diversion from a lightning strike is very unlikely, at least in the older aircraft. I’ve been hit many times in the 767 and 747, and neither aircraft suffered any damage. I’m told that that 787 and it’s ilk don’t fare as well.

The older aircraft were of all metal construction and act like a Faraday cage when struck by lightning. However because aircraft like the 787 and 380 no longer comprise a circular tube made of aluminium but instead are made of non metallic materials (including the wings) how would these aircraft handle a lightning strike?.