Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

Whilst I suspect I already know the answer to this one, it would be nice to get a pilots validation.

Do military aircraft always take off with full fuel tanks, or do they take off with only enough fuel to cover the mission at hand (plus standard reserves)?

Firstly military 'standard' reserves are unlikely to have any relationship whatsoever to what civil aircraft carry. I recall departing Nowra for Sydney in a TA4G, and already being below what would be the minimum at the end of the landing roll in the civil world.

Larger aircraft, would I'd expect, carry whatever fuel load is needed. Smaller aircraft, like the Hawk or F18 will most likely have full internal fuel, but external tanks may be empty even if fitted. The A4G almost always had one or two tanks under the wings, but they were rarely full, and were simply there as an alternative undercarriage. Small stuff like the PC9 might be fuelled every couple of sorties.

There won't be any fixed 'this is how the military do it' rule.

 

[Sifor]

A fighter such as the f18e/f fully loaded with JADAMs, JSOWs, SLAM-ERs etc will often be unable to take off with full internal fuel as the munitions place the a/c above max takeoff weight.

A solution to this is to fly with enough fuel to rendezvous with a nearby tanker (A330 MRTT or even another super hornet carrying a centre buddy tank) shortly after takeoff.

Otherwise theyll fly with whatever fuel is needed..

 

[jb747]

A fighter such as the f18e/f fully loaded with JADAMs, JSOWs, SLAM-ERs etc will often be unable to take off with full internal fuel as the munitions place the a/c above max takeoff weight.

That's pretty much a given with any aircraft. You can always stick so much cargo on (no matter what the sort) that insufficient fuel carriage will be available.

A solution to this is to fly with enough fuel to rendezvous with a nearby tanker (A330 MRTT or even another super hornet carrying a centre buddy tank) shortly after takeoff.

Sort of. Tanking does not allow you to operate above max take off weight, just because you won't be doing a take off. It does allow you to store fuel in an alternative location.

Otherwise theyll fly with whatever fuel is needed..

I don't think you'll find many scenarios in which an F18A operates at less than full internal fuel. That represents only about 10,000 lb (leaving about 20,000 lb available externally). I'm bound to run in to an ex F18 driver over the next few days, so I'll ask.

The later F18s have about another 3,000 lbs internally, so they may operate at a lower internal fuel level...but again, I expect you'll find them mostly full.

The upshot is that internal carriage on F class aircraft isn't normally all that great...

 

[pat25d]

Why do the window shades need to be kept open during takeoff and landing?

It's not like pax are going to be seeing something, press the call button, then pass a message onto the pilots...

 

[smeacs]

Sort of. Tanking does not allow you to operate above max take off weight, just because you won't be doing a take off. It does allow you to store fuel in an alternative location.

Does this mean Max take off weight means more than just how heavy the aircraft can be at the point of take off?

 

[Sifor]

Sort of. Tanking does not allow you to operate above max take off weight, just because you won't be doing a take off. It does allow you to store fuel in an alternative location.

Sorry I didn't articulate that well. They'll reduce internal fuel to allow them to take off with heavy munitions (thereby operating within weight limitations) and meet with tanker assets to fill up later on after expending their munitions or the like.

I don't think you'll find many scenarios in which an F18A operates at less than full internal fuel. That represents only about 10,000 lb (leaving about 20,000 lb available externally). I'm bound to run in to an ex F18 driver over the next few days, so I'll ask.

I'd be interested to know, although as you put it, "whatever is needed" probably is full internal fuel. I do know for a fact, however, that airshow loadouts are minimal fuel but even then if they're flying for 15 minutes full internal fuel will probably be required anyway with the high fuel burn going on. I read somewhere from a USAF F18E pilot they'll easily go through 7000 pounds in the space of 10 mins while doing a demo at an airshow. Money!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Why do the window shades need to be kept open during takeoff and landing?

It's not like pax are going to be seeing something, press the call button, then pass a message onto the pilots...

window shades need to be open for take off and landing for the same reason that cabin lights are dimmed in the evening.

it is so your eyes can be adjusted to the outside conditions in the event of an emergency.

think of it this way... if you go into a brigtly lit room at night time and turn off the lights, it takes you a couple of seconds to become accustomed to the darkeness right? or if yu are in a dark room and someone turns on the light it also takes you a couple of seconds.

the same applies on a plane. if you are in a dark cabin, opening the shades suddenly will take you a couple of seconds. they want to avaoid this time lapse.

having the shades open also allows passengers and crew to assess the outside conditions, if, for example, there is a fire on one side of the aircraft.

there is no reason why passengers should NOT report something they see as unusual to the crew who can then pass it in to the pilots.

the British midland crash (where the pilots shut down the wrong engine) is the classic example of where passengers and crew were aware of the situation but just assumed the pilots knew what they were doing.

since that accident, crews should be trained to investigate passenger concerns more readily. (not saying that passengers will always get it right... but at least their concerns should be assessed)

 

[darrend]

Holding pattern. Just need the wind in the right direction, and a descent of the right amount, at the right time.

Coming out the bottom of a loop is another place to encounter it.

 

[strance]

there is no reason why passengers should NOT report something they see as unusual to the crew who can then pass it in to the pilots.

except during takeoff and landing aren't the crew in a comms lockout with the flight deck ?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

except during takeoff and landing aren't the crew in a comms lockout with the flight deck ?

apparently on qantas they are, and maybe some other airlines as well. however crew I have spoken to on other international airlines (including major American ones) are truly surprised that any airline would consider a comms block out.

 

[jb747]

Why do the window shades need to be kept open during takeoff and landing?

It's not like pax are going to be seeing something, press the call button, then pass a message onto the pilots...

So that light from outside can get in and also people outside can see in, in the event of an accident.

 

[jb747]

Does this mean Max take off weight means more than just how heavy the aircraft can be at the point of take off?

The term maximum take off weight tends to be used interchangeably with the maximum weight. In practice, the maximum take off weight may be limited by many things (runway length, weather, obstacles). So, you can easily have a performance limited take off weight, which is less than the maximum take off weight. But, I can't think of anything that would have an allowed in flight weight greater than the max take off (although with tanking you could well achieve it).

 

[jb747]

Airshows are somewhat different scenarios......

 

[jb747]

Coming out the bottom of a loop is another place to encounter it.

Haven't done one lately, but you are, of course, quite correct.

 

[jb747]

apparently on qantas they are, and maybe some other airlines as well. however crew I have spoken to on other international airlines (including major American ones) are truly surprised that any airline would consider a comms block out.

It doesn't matter how surprised they are..I can guarantee that they wouldn't answer the phone during the take off roll or on the approach...if they even noticed it ring. The Kegworth case offered plenty of time for information to be passed along. Our comms 'no contact' period is quite short, and really just covers the last 1500 feet of the approach, and the take off roll itself...answering the phone is not even on the list at that time, and any ringing is simply a distraction.

 

[Kangol]

Most common problem for us when overseas is a cold or flu. You can't fly with it, but you aren't horribly sick.

If I went sick for the sector you mention, the company would ring all of the captains who were due to go the next day. Mostly they find someone pretty quickly, but occasionally everyone has disappeared. They'd have to keep sliding people forward until they managed to get the standby paxed to London, and when he became available, the patterns would go back to normal. So, it would take about 3 days....

Interesting, is there a minimum class of travel for the standby pilots to be paxed? I can imagine it wouldn't be pleasant for the pilot to travel MEL or SYD-LHR in Y and then be required to fly the plane back! What if flights were full and there were no last minute seats in any class?

 

[jb747]

Interesting, is there a minimum class of travel for the standby pilots to be paxed? I can imagine it wouldn't be pleasant for the pilot to travel MEL or SYD-LHR in Y and then be required to fly the plane back! What if flights were full and there were no last minute seats in any class?

Nominally in first, but there are a number of caveats to that, which mean it could be business. On arrival, the normal minimum slip time rules apply (which vary depending upon just how long it took you to get there), but if you paxed to London you'd probably need 24 hours before you could operate. LA probably 12.

No seats? There will always be seats. Flight crew being moved in that situation overrides all other loading priorities....simply because if they don't correct it quickly, they could run into the situation of not being able to crew, and hence operate, a service.

 

[Major]

Are check lists still carried on board in paper form or are they now all electronic ?

Just how many check lists are there at the moment ?

 

[Skyring]

I can't think of anything that would have an allowed in flight weight greater than the max take off (although with tanking you could well achieve it).

That was the problem with Air Australia, wasn't it?

Except the captain came on and apologised - saying we ran into wake turbulence

Because it woke everybody up?

There must be some places where you can't avoid it. Landing and takeoffs, for example, where you are essentially following the exact same path of the aircraft ahead. There must be a "drift" mechanism at work to clear the air.

FAA Wake turbulence test - YouTube

Some film from testing involving a 727 and a 737...which aren't all that different in size.

That's pretty scarey. Hit one of those things - without smoke generators - and you're going to have people and stuff tumbling around inside the cabin. I had a glass of orange juice dumped in my lap once and it was not a pretty sight. Especially when I stood up. The next passenger would have had second thoughts about his seat request.

As ever, the "related videos" that YouTube generates in the sidebar are a good way to soak up an hour or so. One of the more bizarre ones was a conspiracy theory that the 9/11 videos were all faked because there were no wake turbulence vortices visible in the smoke.

 

[darrend]

Because it woke everybody up?

There must be some places where you can't avoid it. Landing and takeoffs, for example, where you are essentially following the exact same path of the aircraft ahead. There must be a "drift" mechanism at work to clear the air.

If you follow the exact same path as a preceding aircraft you will NOT hit its wake. The wake trails behind and below the previous aircraft. I remember coming into OOL one day in a C210 (back when I had a private licence) and a 727 (if I recall correctly) landed in front of me. I was below his flight path and that was pretty scary for a little while. Case of full power and go around - lesson learnt.

Wake turbulence dissipates faster in windy conditions, if there is a decent cross wind then it is unlikely you will fly into wake turbulence of a preceding aircraft unless you are way closer than you should be and importantly below its flight path.

Take-off might be more of a concern if aircraft were permitted to depart without adequate seperation (in terms of time) but ATC take that into account assessing the actual weather and also issuing warnings to pilots, if conditions dictate - "Caution wake turbulence", who should also assess the conditions and operate accordingly.