Ask The Pilot

  • Thread starter Thread starter NM
  • Start date Start date
  • Featured
jb747 said:
Most of us have lives, other than in the coughpit. I'm quite looking forward to the day that the biggest thing I'll have to worry about is the caravan.
Click to expand...
While I was browsing some of the earlier ones, I read this.

Now, that this point of your life is here, how are you travelling? And the 'van? Enjoying it?
 
mjt57 said:
While I was browsing some of the earlier ones, I read this.

Now, that this point of your life is here, how are you travelling? And the 'van? Enjoying it?
Click to expand...

I am enjoying the simpler life of the van. It’s also proving to be a great way to lose a few kilos, and gain some fitness. We are currently in Whyalla, heading east, after a run to Albany. Hadn’t been there before, and loved it. What a great place. Since that last flight, I’ve barely been home, and it will stay that way for much of the year, with trips to both the USA and to Europe in the calendar.

I miss the flying to a degree, but it’s already receding into that same hangar that holds the A4....I’m glad I did it, but don’t want to do it again. I have no intention of doing any private flying, and will let my licence expire as the medical becomes due. To a degree my flying has always been a box ticking exercise. Wanted a private licence, got that. Wanted to do the pilots’ course. Tick. Fly fighters. Tick. Airlines. Yes. Heavy jet command. Yes....and so on. At no point have I ever moved backwards.

My retirement was about a year before I would have reached the age at which I’d have had to give up the international flying. If I’d gone to 65, the choice is retire, or move to domestic....which is extremely unattractive in many ways.

Over the years, I’ve seen many pilots who really should have retired earlier, and who bitterly hung on until the retirement age. Flying is a job that experience works well in, but at the same time the flying skills themselves do degrade. One will offset the other to a large extent. It was always my aim to go before I reached that point. You never want to become someone that the FOs have to ‘carry’ (though some people start that way).

The best thing about the job was always the people (both flight and cabin) that you get to fly with....and even some of the passengers. The worst thing, has been the non stop war that upper management have been waging against the staff since Dixon’s day, and that I won’t miss.
 
oz_mark said:
Is a flight path like this due to ETOPS, or lack thereof? It's an A330, so may not have the cross country options of a 737..
Click to expand...

If you go to gcmap.com you can generate the various ETOPs circles on a map of the world.

The route doesn’t really make that much sense, as a 330 would have been able to use, Adelaide, Alice Springs, Kalgoorlie, and Perth for the planning, and even if reduced to 60 minutes, that only takes you to the edge of the Bight.

Something else would have to be at play...perhaps Kalgoorlie was unavailable.
 
Another one for the pilots - specifically JB given his history with the 388 and working for QF. I was on last Wednesday's (17th) QF8 from Dallas for which we took an interesting flight path and would be interested to hear thoughts on the following:

- why would the flight path track so far south prior to heading NW back over the US west coast near San Diego before turning towards Sydney (I'm aware the initial direction was based on some severe weather near DFW but surely the whole path wasn't)?
- how close is the actual distance flown of 14,990 km to the A380's maximum given some quoted ranges are 15,000km?
- would anything different have had to be done for the length (both distance and timing) of the flight?

I'm aware that the above would be based on some variables including pax numbers etc. I know that F & J were full, unsure on Y+ or Y.

Needless to say that the overall flight time of 18hr 30mins was the longest I've ever been on, but interestingly didn't find it too bad. I actually think ULH could be feasible -for me at least.
 

Attachments

  • QF8.jpg
    QF8.jpg
    129.3 KB · Views: 81
Check out the latest credit card signup bonus point offers
Read our AFF credit card guides and start earning more points now.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

flyer89 said:
Are there any MEL items that would preclude it from operating ETOPS normally?
Click to expand...
Having one pack inop would be the most common one.

As a side note they haven’t called it ETOPS in years. It’s now referred to as EDTO (extended diversion time operations).

Interestingly the 737 isn’t EDTO for most if not all transcon flights.
 
Happened on this article about a UK IT startup with proposition of saving fuel by optimising fuel loads by weighing passengers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/tran...s-money/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.af29b87e70cc

so had a look at the company website
Home | Fuel Matrix Limited

Not clear to me if all the proposed savings are down to knowing passenger weight more precisely.

My question : considering all the variables the pilot must consider in setting the fuel load, is the precision of passenger weight a significant factor ?
 
flyer89 said:
Are there any MEL items that would preclude it from operating ETOPS normally?
Click to expand...

Many items can affect ETOPS (sorry AV, but I'll have call it what it was back when I had to worry about it). Common ones...lack of APU, or separately its air or electrical outputs. Lack of bleed air or a generator on one of the engines. Basically any time you ended up with only two air or power sources, be they engine or APU, then ETOPS would be reduced.

Hydraulic sources were usually powered both mechanically and pneumatically, and loss of either of those power sources would have an effect.

The list was quite extensive, but I don't have a 767 MEL any more, so I can't look them up.
 
ayebee said:
Happened on this article about a UK IT startup with proposition of saving fuel by optimising fuel loads by weighing passengers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/tran...s-money/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.af29b87e70cc

so had a look at the company website
Home | Fuel Matrix Limited

Not clear to me if all the proposed savings are down to knowing passenger weight more precisely.

My question : considering all the variables the pilot must consider in setting the fuel load, is the precision of passenger weight a significant factor ?
Click to expand...

It's yet another way of reducing the fuel load. Sadly, fuel on the ground is one of the least useful things in aviation.
 
Fergo747 said:
Another one for the pilots - specifically JB given his history with the 388 and working for QF. I was on last Wednesday's (17th) QF8 from Dallas for which we took an interesting flight path and would be interested to hear thoughts on the following:

- why would the flight path track so far south prior to heading NW back over the US west coast near San Diego before turning towards Sydney (I'm aware the initial direction was based on some severe weather near DFW but surely the whole path wasn't)?
- how close is the actual distance flown of 14,990 km to the A380's maximum given some quoted ranges are 15,000km?
- would anything different have had to be done for the length (both distance and timing) of the flight?

I'm aware that the above would be based on some variables including pax numbers etc. I know that F & J were full, unsure on Y+ or Y.

Needless to say that the overall flight time of 18hr 30mins was the longest I've ever been on, but interestingly didn't find it too bad. I actually think ULH could be feasible -for me at least.
Click to expand...

Was the flight time that you eventually flew, similar or longer than what was quoted at the start of the flight?

Two things occur to me, when looking at the track. In the first instance, it sets you up to fly over Mexico, which is not an unusual way to go. But then it turns away, and tracks more or less along the border. That makes me wonder if there was some issue with the clearance.

Secondly, in the USA, because there is so much air traffic, when there is weather affecting routes, they tend not to let individual aircraft sort out their own act, but they just clear you on other routes that get you out of the way, but which may not be all that convenient to you. The very first time I took a 747 to JFK, the route we flew was related to the plan only in that it started and ended in the same place.

18:30 is a long flight. When I did the Dallas flight (only once) it was just on 17 hours. But, on that occasion, I had weight available for about another 15 tonnes of fuel, and a full flight. I don't think there's much cargo there, so straight away that gives a pretty decent amount of space for fuel.

Quoted maximum ranges are in specified conditions. Change anything, wind is obvious, but temperature isn't, and it has a great effect. Your flight would have been tight for fuel, but the system would have had to be able to generate a legal flight plan, otherwise a stop at Brisbane would have been on the flight plan. When flights are tight, the company will position a crew in Brisbane in anticipation of a diversion, with the final call as to whether it happens or not being up to the operating Captain. I know that they did so for your flight, as I received an SMS asking if I could help out on the 16th. I guess that scheduling haven't gotten the memo about my retirement yet.
 
jb747 said:
Was the flight time that you eventually flew, similar or longer than what was quoted at the start of the flight?

Two things occur to me, when looking at the track. In the first instance, it sets you up to fly over Mexico, which is not an unusual way to go. But then it turns away, and tracks more or less along the border. That makes me wonder if there was some issue with the clearance.

Secondly, in the USA, because there is so much air traffic, when there is weather affecting routes, they tend not to let individual aircraft sort out their own act, but they just clear you on other routes that get you out of the way, but which may not be all that convenient to you. The very first time I took a 747 to JFK, the route we flew was related to the plan only in that it started and ended in the same place.

18:30 is a long flight. When I did the Dallas flight (only once) it was just on 17 hours. But, on that occasion, I had weight available for about another 15 tonnes of fuel, and a full flight. I don't think there's much cargo there, so straight away that gives a pretty decent amount of space for fuel.

Quoted maximum ranges are in specified conditions. Change anything, wind is obvious, but temperature isn't, and it has a great effect. Your flight would have been tight for fuel, but the system would have had to be able to generate a legal flight plan, otherwise a stop at Brisbane would have been on the flight plan. When flights are tight, the company will position a crew in Brisbane in anticipation of a diversion, with the final call as to whether it happens or not being up to the operating Captain. I know that they did so for your flight, as I received an SMS asking if I could help out on the 16th. I guess that scheduling haven't gotten the memo about my retirement yet.
Click to expand...
Assuming sufficient fuel, do crew hours come into play with a flight time that gets extended? I.e. does it matter if you go over hours while still in the air?
 
JessicaTam said:
Assuming sufficient fuel, do crew hours come into play with a flight time that gets extended? I.e. does it matter if you go over hours while still in the air?
Click to expand...

Flight or duty time extensions can become quite problematic. They are not at the whim of the Captain, or management, but each individual has the right to decide. So, there is never any guarantee that an extension will be available. I have withheld them myself, and I always refused to promise one in advance. It's not industrial. The passengers are entitled to pilots who are not so tired that they don't know which way is up.

You cannot legally take off if there is not a reasonable expectation of completing the flight within the time limits. If necessary, you should divert to avoid breaching them. So, yes, it matters a lot.

Note though, flight time limits relating to pilots are law...but cabin crew are industrial agreements.
 
jb747 said:
It's yet another way of reducing the fuel load. Sadly, fuel on the ground is one of the least useful things in aviation.
Click to expand...

So the pilot would ignore this level of "precision" and load what he/she think they need, irrespective?
 

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.

Recent Posts

Currently Active Users

Total: 243 (members: 32, guests: 211)
Back
Top