Ask The Pilot

[mikenz]

Do short haul flights take jet streams into consideration when planning a route? Mel-Syd-Bris all seem to stay the same route.

 

[jb747]

Do short haul flights take jet streams into consideration when planning a route? Mel-Syd-Bris all seem to stay the same route.

On short flights, there are many constraints that simply make rerouting to get out of wind ineffective. A major concern is that within about 250nm of destinations, routes are constrained for ATC reasons. On legs across the Pacific, flights can easily be a thousand miles apart at the mid point.

Vertical choices are commonly used on short legs. Flying Sydney to Melbourne in the 767 was often done in the mid twenties, to keep out of the worst of the wind. Going the other way, you'd climb up into it, to get as much wind behind you as possible.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Do short haul flights take jet streams into consideration when planning a route? Mel-Syd-Bris all seem to stay the same route.

The filed route will be on the airway regardless of jet stream activity or not. The level however, we will usually get a ride report from ATC on the climb out and then we will make a decision. The only time flights will get jet stream routed/re routed is transcon.

 

[Quickstatus]

Is there a website which provides latest global jet stream info (preferably graphical) - altitude, direction and speed?

 

[AviatorInsight]

Is there a website which provides latest global jet stream info (preferably graphical) - altitude, direction and speed?

Of course!

Click here.

 

[jb747]

An aircraft’s track and groundspeed are the vector sums of its true airspeed and heading, and the wind direction and strength. Airspeed is what makes an aircraft fly, and groundspeed is what makes it get anywhere. All of these components are normally thought of in instantaneous terms.

Navigators (I was one originally, but I guess they don’t even exist any more) often think of things differently. Whilst you can simply resolve an aircraft’s motion down to groundspeed and track, it’s sometimes useful to keep components separate. So, you could plot an aircraft heading and airspeed, leaving out the effect of wind. An aircraft heading north at 500 knots, would, over an hour move 500 AIR MILES to the north. You plot that imaginary spot on a map. If you then plotted the average wind and direction for that same time period from this imaginary point, you’d get the real position after an hour. In the days before digital computers, many navigation problems were solved by plotting.

The aim of any flight planner, is to come up with a flight plan that is least cost. That takes into account items like overflight charges. If they didn’t have to be catered for, then the lowest cost flight would also be the one that flies the least air miles.

 

[jb747]

United Airlines Flight 232 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I see that the Captain, Al Haynes, died the other day. This was one of the truly stunning saves in aviation. I recall seeing it on the news the day it happened, and being amazed that anyone survived at all. When we learnt how the crew were controlling the aircraft, I was even more amazed.

RIP.

 

[flyer89]

I see that the Captain, Al Haynes, died the other day. This was one of the truly stunning saves in aviation. I recall seeing it on the news the day it happened, and being amazed that anyone survived at all. When we learnt how the crew were controlling the aircraft, I was even more amazed.

RIP.

The small amount of footage there is of the landing makes it even more remarkable when you realize many survived. I note he also praised CRM in part for the outcome.

 

[jb747]

I note he also praised CRM in part for the outcome.

The great god, CRM.

There are many ways of looking at CRM. Al Haynes made the most of all resources available to him, especially including the paxing pilot. He remained in control of his coughpit, but kept it as light as possible in the circumstances.

Some seem to think that CRM is a democratisation of the coughpit. It isn't that. It's about using everything at your disposal to get the outcome you want. Part of that is ensuring that any information held by other members of the crew has a chance to be aired. Good Captains have always done that.

I was recently talking with a friend who is about to start his command training. He's long time FO, so he really has to learn to let his previous role go....they'll give him an FO. But one point I made was to always remember that you are surrounded by people who know how to do their jobs. You do not need to micromanage them. If you do the command thing right, you can make it appear that you just sit back in your chair and read the paper, whilst it all happens around you. Perhaps that's good CRM too.

 

[flyer89]

I was recently talking with a friend who is about to start his command training. He's long time FO, so he really has to learn to let his previous role go....

What aircraft is he moving into for command?

 

[jb747]

What aircraft is he moving into for command?

A330.

 

[AviatorInsight]

But one point I made was to always remember that you are surrounded by people who know how to do their jobs. You do not need to micromanage them. If you do the command thing right, you can make it appear that you just sit back in your chair and read the paper, whilst it all happens around you. Perhaps that's good CRM too.

This is so damn true. It's amazing how many captains I fly with that still do this. As recent as yesterday in fact. My first instinct is to tell them exactly everything on my mind so they know what I'm thinking. If they're still so worried about my actions my defence for this is to just hand over and give them control. I'll give them the support they need, yet it is very demoralising to a professional pilot.

I've come to the conclusion that it is just their own insecurities and inabilities. Sure they may have had scares in the past and then taint every FO with the same brush.

 

[flyer89]

I've come to the conclusion that it is just their own insecurities and inabilities. Sure they may have had scares in the past and then taint every FO with the same brush.

If they are from an instructor background they should've already had more attempts on their life than Pablo Escobar

 

[Antoallison]

United Airlines Flight 232 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I see that the Captain, Al Haynes, died the other day. This was one of the truly stunning saves in aviation. I recall seeing it on the news the day it happened, and being amazed that anyone survived at all. When we learnt how the crew were controlling the aircraft, I was even more amazed.

RIP.

I have read an article in the Seattle press and it seems that he donated the money he made from his speaking engagements after the crash (with the loss of life including many children on board due to the promo, this must have been hard for him to do - but at the same time cathartic) to funds and scholarships set up for the education of the children of the victims. A brave man, a good man. RIP.

 

[jb747]

I've come to the conclusion that it is just their own insecurities and inabilities. Sure they may have had scares in the past and then taint every FO with the same brush.

Captains let the FO fly, not to the limit of the FO's ability, but to their own, minus whatever margin keeps them comfortable.

QF doesn't let FOs fly to the aircraft limitations. Instrument approaches, and crosswinds, have FO limits applied to them.

 

[jb747]

If they are from an instructor background they should've already had more attempts on their life than Pablo Escobar

Some attempts you expect. The ones that are most likely to get you come from people you trust!

 

[ayebee]

An aircraft’s track and groundspeed are the vector sums of its true airspeed and heading, and the wind direction and strength. Airspeed is what makes an aircraft fly, and groundspeed is what makes it get anywhere. All of these components are normally thought of in instantaneous terms.

Navigators (I was one originally, but I guess they don’t even exist any more) often think of things differently. Whilst you can simply resolve an aircraft’s motion down to groundspeed and track, it’s sometimes useful to keep components separate. So, you could plot an aircraft heading and airspeed, leaving out the effect of wind. An aircraft heading north at 500 knots, would, over an hour move 500 AIR MILES to the north. You plot that imaginary spot on a map. If you then plotted the average wind and direction for that same time period from this imaginary point, you’d get the real position after an hour. In the days before digital computers, many navigation problems were solved by plotting.

The aim of any flight planner, is to come up with a flight plan that is least cost. That takes into account items like overflight charges. If they didn’t have to be catered for, then the lowest cost flight would also be the one that flies the least air miles.

Interesting.
Happened to have a daughter on QF93 yesterday (29 Aug). Quite often QF93 overflies Sydney heading for LAX, but yesterday I noticed it took quite the southerly route just north of NZ, before turning north. Also the flights from SYD and BNE looped east before turning north.
I presumed there were strong northerly winds nearer Australia and those routes were the most economic and ultimately quickest.

 

[albatross710]

What is the largest aircraft that you get to intentionally do stall recovery?

CT-4 yes
Macchi yes?
A4?
767?
more?

At what type of aircraft does spin recovery leave the training manual?

EDIT: Removed my definition of a stall.

 

[ChrisGibbs]

Back in 1991 there was an accident off the coast of East Sale with a RAAF 707 from 33 SQN Richmond getting itself into a VMCA loss of control scenario at too low an altitude to recover resulting in loss of five lives.

 

[jb747]

What is the largest aircraft that you get to intentionally do stall recovery?

CT-4 yes
Macchi yes?
A4?
767?
more?

At what type of aircraft does spin recovery leave the training manual.

CT4 could stalled without restriction. Stabilised erect spins were banned, but the definition of stabilised let you spin it for a few turns. Inverted spins were banned in all types by the RAAF, with the exception that low level display pilots were to be proficient, if it could be safely done in their aircraft. CT4 had an oscillatory erect spin, that could become flat, and so was considered dangerous. Its inverted spin was fast, stable, and quite disorienting.

Macchi was unrestricted for stalls. Erect spins were lovely, and not restricted. Intentional inverted spins were banned, and dangerous. Both RAAF and RAN lost Macchis from inverted spins.

The A4 could be stalled from normal training setups, but mostly they were stalled from accelerated (high g) scenarios. You lived on the edge of the stall in a dogfight. You did not intentionally spin an A4, either erect or inverted.

You practice stalling in the airliner sims, but never in the aircraft.