Ask The Pilot

[AviatorInsight]

1. The fuel discrepancy was a result of the under-reading of the total fuel quantity by the FQIS. The under-reading was due to the centre tank’s eight fuel tank sensors not being taken into account in FQPU’s computation despite the correct setting of the PSM. The under-reading resulted in the overfuel of 41 tonnes of fuel.

FQIS = Fuel Quantity Indication System. (This is what is actually in the fuel tank by the sensors.)
FQPU = Fuel Quantity Processing Unit. (Input and computation of the sensors are sent here.)
PSM = Program Switch Module. (Tells the sensors what type of aircraft it is B777-200 or B777-200ER. It was correct in this case.)

1. The degree of wear was also higher than on other PSMs that were returned to the aircraft manufacturer from service. In the opinion of the aircraft manufacturer, such wear had the potential to cause a fault in the FQPU and might cause it to default to the B777-200 mode.

Basically, what happened was that the FQPU was operating in the B777-200 mode not the ER version. An inspection of the PSM later found that there was damage around the PSM with the soldering junctions.

I've seen it the other way around where fuel uplifted ex LAX resulted in a higher calculated burn (ie, calculated fuel flow through the pipes was faster than what was on the FQIS. The checklist reads to always switch from FMC calculated to totaliser fuel (FQIS) as that is what is actually (should be?) remaining in the tanks.

The picture is what pilots have access to in flight and shows all the fuel sensors in the tanks.

 

[oz_mark]

Probably answered somewhere, but I couldn't find it, and a curious mind wants to know.

Was on a flight that had two go arounds in Perth last night (runway 21 to begin with, third go was onto 06, which might say something about the wind!),
1) The FO flew us over, would the captain have taken over somewhere along the line?
2) If go 3 wasn't successful, would we have gone somewhere, and if so, from Perth where would you go? (738 if it helps!)

 

[Quickstatus]

Probably answered somewhere, but I couldn't find it, and a curious mind wants to know.

Was on a flight that had two go arounds in Perth last night (runway 21 to begin with, third go was onto 06, which might say something about the wind!),
1) The FO flew us over, would the captain have taken over somewhere along the line?
2) If go 3 wasn't successful, would we have gone somewhere, and if so, from Perth where would you go? (738 if it helps!)

From Where did the flight originate?

 

[oz_mark]

From Where did the flight originate?

Melbourne.

 

[Quickstatus]

Melbourne.

Also The preceding flight also has a “take 2”:

 

[AviatorInsight]

Probably answered somewhere, but I couldn't find it, and a curious mind wants to know.

Was on a flight that had two go arounds in Perth last night (runway 21 to begin with, third go was onto 06, which might say something about the wind!),
1) The FO flew us over, would the captain have taken over somewhere along the line?
2) If go 3 wasn't successful, would we have gone somewhere, and if so, from Perth where would you go? (738 if it helps!)

Looking at the historical data between 9 and 10pm, the wind certainly did pick up rapidly 22kts gusting up to 47 before dropping off rapidly around 2130, finally picking back up again shortly thereafter back up to 45kt wind gusts before calming down around 2230.

1. I can't say whether the captain would have taken over in this instance. I have had experiences like that and every time the Capt has let me just continue on with the flying.
2. 3 goes at PER leaves very little room for a diversion anywhere else, so you'd be basically committing to PER. Usually it's 2 goes and you're out of there to Kalgoorlie (KGI) or Geraldton (GET).

 

[Major]

If you are landing from the South, do you expect the taxi to the terminal to be a long one from BNE's new runway ?

 

[jb747]

1. I can't say whether the captain would have taken over in this instance. I have had experiences like that and every time the Capt has let me just continue on with the flying.

I never let the FO have a second go, if the go around had be caused by the weather.

2. 3 goes at PER leaves very little room for a diversion anywhere else, so you'd be basically committing to PER. Usually it's 2 goes and you're out of there to Kalgoorlie (KGI) or Geraldton (GET).

That assumes you've had either of those places available in the first place. Diversion fuel is not mandatory in all cases...

 

[AviatorInsight]

That assumes you've had either of those places available in the first place. Diversion fuel is not mandatory in all cases...

This is true but I can’t imagine many pilots rocking up to PER without a place to go and/or fuel for additional holding for events just like this.

 

[AviatorInsight]

If you are landing from the South, do you expect the taxi to the terminal to be a long one from BNE's new runway ?

Certainly longer than the current configuration. But I don’t think it’ll be any different to landing at some of the other majors.

 

[Quickstatus]

Usually it's 2 goes and you're out of there to Kalgoorlie (KGI) or Geraldton (GET).

ALH if no options?

 

[woodborer]

This is true but I can’t imagine many pilots rocking up to PER without a place to go and/or fuel for additional holding for events just like this.

Certainly had pilots say they are adding fuel (after forecast changes) to keep options open when heading to Perth....

 

[AviatorInsight]

ALH if no options?

Both PEA and ALH are emergency ports only. Of course use them if you absolutely had to but in a preferential order PEA (due to runway characteristics) over ALH. The problem then becomes, conditions at PEA aren’t going to be any better than PER.

I’ll always suggest KGI as a minimum, covers 2hrs at PER, GEL and KGI.

 

[Mr Pumblechook]

If you are landing from the South, do you expect the taxi to the terminal to be a long one from BNE's new runway?

It'll be the international flights that see the longest taxi times because the train line and roads are blocking a direct taxi route to/from the international terminal. Expected to be in the order of 20 minutes or so.

 

[jb747]

Certainly had pilots say they are adding fuel (after forecast changes) to keep options open when heading to Perth....

That's certainly common enough, and easy enough on shorter sectors. But, at the end of a long sector, the luxury of fuel starts to disappear. I've had flights to Perth where I carried sufficient fuel to make the east coast, and others where we were scraping to keep it legal. It is a place to be very wary of.

 

[Berlin]

If you are landing from the South, do you expect the taxi to the terminal to be a long one from BNE's new runway ?

I prefer a longer taxi over endless holds over the Gold Coast so bring it on!

 

[Himeno]

There is an aviation youtuber based in MEL who seems to love Airbus. They regularly make videos about Project Sunrise and usually talk up how "good" the A350 is.
They were recently on the Qantas 747 charter flight to the Avalon Airshow and released a video yesterday saying "Qantas sources have confirmed A350 ordered for Project Sunrise" when no such order has been announced, even by Airbus as an "undisclosed customer".

Turns out their source is a QF 747 captain.

A commenter on the video is adamant that the A350 claim is true and insists the order was made in December. Their source, "technical staff who are reading A350 manuals and organising flight simulator mods".

My understanding is that no one at Qantas outside the board, some of the executive's reporting to AJ and maybe 1 or 2 people at the top of the IOC are going to know about any new orders before they are announced and that any talk of orders or new routes from line staff of any type are nothing more then rumor and speculation.
Is my understanding accurate?

 

[jb747]

Turns out their source is a QF 747 captain.

A commenter on the video is adamant that the A350 claim is true and insists the order was made in December. Their source, "technical staff who are reading A350 manuals and organising flight simulator mods".

My understanding is that no one at Qantas outside the board, some of the executive's reporting to AJ and maybe 1 or 2 people at the top of the IOC are going to know about any new orders before they are announced and that any talk of orders or new routes from line staff of any type are nothing more then rumor and speculation.
Is my understanding accurate?

A 747 captain is extremely unlikely to know....unless he happens to be one of the management pilots. But in that case, he'd be very unlikely to tell anyone.

I certainly wouldn't be surprised though. The 350 is a real product now, whilst the 777X is still some way off. You could even lease a few 350s and see how it all works out. You do have to wonder though, how it was that AJ was able to cancel the standing 380 orders. There had to be some give and take for that.

Nevertheless, I think the entire project is pie in the sky.

 

[oz_mark]

A 747 captain is extremely unlikely to know....unless he happens to be one of the management pilots. But in that case, he'd be very unlikely to tell anyone.

I certainly wouldn't be surprised though. The 350 is a real product now, whilst the 777X is still some way off. You could even lease a few 350s and see how it all works out. You do have to wonder though, how it was that AJ was able to cancel the standing 380 orders. There had to be some give and take for that.

While I suspect there was some undisclosed give and take, we also found out later that Airbus were deciding on the whole A380 future. Airbus would have wanted a decision made. Qantas would have wanted to lose as little as possible cancelling the order.
Not sure we have the full picture yet on what was negotiated.

 

[MickC32]

Nevertheless, I think the entire project is pie in the sky.

Why do you say that?