Ask The Pilot

  • Thread starter Thread starter NM
  • Start date Start date
  • Featured
How was the performance done on the 744 pre iPad and laptop?
From those huge manuals. But we never had to flight plan, that was done by planners on large computers. We’d pull the cruise data out, generally looking at whether we could climb, and the cost or gain of doing so, from the graphs.

Take off performance had to be pulled out of the graphs every time. It was always done twice, generally by one of the SOs and the Captain. The company had made it somewhat easier, by converting all of the Boeing generic data into runway specific graphs. That took a lot of the variables out of the equation. Each of these manuals was hundreds of A4 pages long.

Landing data was easy enough to get out of the generic data. Nobody bothered with descent data, as the FMCs would work it out. Otherwise, height in thousands times 3.3 was close enough.

The real fun was was back in the past, when you had to work out data for the aircraft using water injection. Then the considerations had to include loss of a single or double system, as well as normal V1 issues.
 
@jb747 do you remember the wet vs dry T/O rating for the water injected 747 classics?

But im slightly confused. An exQF Flight engineer who medically retired whom I met when he was an orderly in a hospital said the water injection took place in the compressor (sort of like a turbo intercooler except its water) but another old 74C engineer I met said it was injected directly into combustion chambers with the fuel to increase the mass flow in exhaust. Both have reduction in temperatures as a desired result allowing more fuel to be burnt.

I assume that when there was water injection takeoff the exhaust was very black?
 
Take off performance had to be pulled out of the graphs every time. It was always done twice, generally by one of the SOs and the Captain. The company had made it somewhat easier, by converting all of the Boeing generic data into runway specific graphs. That took a lot of the variables out of the equation. Each of these manuals was hundreds of A4 pages long.

Did it add any significant time into the preflight in comparison to today?
 
Remaining slightly OT.

I was at Amberley many years ago when the USAF was operating KC-135 tankers out of there. Their performance was calculated to maximum takeoff weight and then they were loaded with fuel to those figures. One day a KC-135 lost the water methanol injection on one engine during takeoff. Five miles south and just off runway centreline is Flinders Peak* which he flew past and eventually climbed away as the curvature of the earth allowed. Very scary stuff for everyone involved.

*Flinders Peak is only just over 2000ft above Amberley airfield elevation.
 
@jb747 do you remember the wet vs dry T/O rating for the water injected 747 classics?

55,000 lb with water, and 50,000 lb without rings a bell. Long time ago though.

But im slightly confused. An exQF Flight engineer who medically retired whom I met when he was an orderly in a hospital said the water injection took place in the compressor (sort of like a turbo intercooler except its water) but another old 74C engineer I met said it was injected directly into combustion chambers with the fuel to increase the mass flow in exhaust. Both have reduction in temperatures as a desired result allowing more fuel to be burnt.

I don’t remember, if I ever even knew, exactly where it’s injected. The aim was an increase in mass flow. The cooling effect was countered by pumping in more fuel. The temperatures would get very high, in many (most) cases lighting up the overtemp lights.

I assume that when there was water injection takeoff the exhaust was very black?

Couldn’t see from where I was sitting.

It wasn’t used very often. In the end I think they decided there was more cost in carrying the equipment and maintaining it, compared to the occasional gain in weight.

Did it add any significant time into the preflight in comparison to today?

You always got an hour. This can be reduced somewhat when the same crew is just doing a turnaround. When you change aircraft types, that’s often a struggle, but as you gain experience, the time needed reduces. There was some extra work for the flight engineers, but only a couple of minutes. The performance calculations were a nightmare for most SOs. Complex and rarely seen...but someone would help the new people, and the rest sorted it out. I used to do the Athens flights a fair bit, and I made up a flow chart, so I think it only took another minute or two compared to extracting the normal data. Definitely felt smug if you managed to do it faster than the Captain (and get it right).

The A380 was the most difficult aircraft to preflight. When I first when to it you needed every minute of that hour. There was no good reason for it to be so complex, other than Airbus writing a preflight for the lowest common denominator. Treat it like any other aircraft, and it could be done in 15 minutes.
 
Last edited:
@straitman
The methanol was antifreeze? Was the water/methanol dyed a certain colour so people didn’t drink it by accident?
Water methanol is used in piston engines. In those, the water cools everything, whilst the methanol increases the octane rating, and so allows more boost (before detonation). In turbines, I think it’s just water with fuel enrichment.
 
When we operated gas turbines they had two lots of water injection. One into the compressor section to increase density and therefore mass flow. Then water was injected directly into the combustion chamber with the fuel. (Natural gas or diesel). That was a NOX reduction measure.
 
The A380 was the most difficult aircraft to preflight. When I first when to it you needed every minute of that hour. There was no good reason for it to be so complex, other than Airbus writing a preflight for the lowest common denominator. Treat it like any other aircraft, and it could be done in 15 minutes.
mIst have been quite a procedure going by a mate’s experience a couple of days ago.
He flew to England with Emirates on an A380. Something went awry with the preflight and they had to “reboot the plane” as he described it.
I think he wrote that they were delayed 3hrs while they sorted it out.
 
mIst have been quite a procedure going by a mate’s experience a couple of days ago.
He flew to England with Emirates on an A380. Something went awry with the preflight and they had to “reboot the plane” as he described it.
I think he wrote that they were delayed 3hrs while they sorted it out.

Reboots of many of the systems were the engineers job. In particular, the cabin systems would take about 45 minutes for a complete restart. The problem was that such restarts were often not completely successful, leaving you with individual systems that then needed attention.

It didn’t take 3 hours, unless it wasn’t actually working out.

coughpit systems were much quicker than that, and some reboots could even be done in flight.
 
Over the past 14 months I’ve been doing the Syd-Hnd, Mel-Nrt, Bne-Nrt and vv on a 2 weekly basis. The tracks appear to be either a few degrees W of N or a few degrees E of N. Assuming odds and evens applies does this mean an aircraft will need to climb / descend as required to ensure compliance with they are flying at the correct hemispheric altitudes?

One additional point - what is the meteorological reason why things become unsettled flying over the equator.. the seat belt sign can be on for anything from 20-60 minutes due turbulence..
 
Over the past 14 months I’ve been doing the Syd-Hnd, Mel-Nrt, Bne-Nrt and vv on a 2 weekly basis. The tracks appear to be either a few degrees W of N or a few degrees E of N. Assuming odds and evens applies does this mean an aircraft will need to climb / descend as required to ensure compliance with they are flying at the correct hemispheric altitudes?

In theory yes. In practice ATC normally accepts the aircraft at non quadrantal levels for a while. Depends on other traffic of course.. This applies in many places.

One additional point - what is the meteorological reason why things become unsettled flying over the equator.. the seat belt sign can be on for anything from 20-60 minutes due turbulence.

It’s called the ITCZ, and sits either slightly north or south of the equator depending upon the season. It’s where the weather patterns from the northern and Southern Hemisphere mix. All you never wanted to know about it is here:
 
In this particular incident a couple of years ago they mention the thrust levers in CLIMB GATE.

What exactly does this mean and how many thrust positions are there ?

 
In this particular incident a couple of years ago they mention the thrust levers in CLIMB GATE.

What exactly does this mean and how many thrust positions are there ?

Whilst you’ll occasionally hear the comment that the Airbus thrust levers don’t move, that gives a totally wrong impression. They move in exactly the same way that Boeing ones do. I’m not sure that the angle of motion is, but the tips of the levers on the A380 probably moved about 25-30 cms or so. When the levers are fully aft, they are at idle (!). Push them forward most of the way, and you reach the first gate, which is CLB. Next up is only a small motion, which takes you to FLEX/MCT. All the way to the forward stop, and you reach TO/GA.

In a Boeing, for most of the time (but not all), and when the auto thrust is engaged, the thrust levers are driven by a servo so that they sit at the position that would give you that power setting if the auto thrust were not engaged. If the A/T want’s 50% power, then they are roughly 50% of the way through their range of motion. The upshot is that if you disconnect the A/T, the power won’t change because the levers are already that the position for the current power.

Airbus do it differently. I think the original reason was to save the cost and weight of the thrust lever servo. They work exactly the same as Boeing levers when in manual thrust. When the A/T is engaged, it’s allowed to use any power from idle to wherever the levers are. If half way, then that would be idle to 50%. That’s not the way they are meant to be used though...the A/T needs to be able to go from idle to whatever the correct maximum power for the stage of flight is....and most of the time, that’s climb power. FLEX is a derated take off mode, and sets a particular power that was set up in the FMCs during preflight. The autothrust is not engaged then in FLEX. It’s the next notch up from CLB. TO/GA is also not an A/T mode. If you push the levers all the way, you’ll get TO/GA, and the A/T if previously engaged is disabled. Auto thrust engagement occurs when the thrust levers are pulled back from TO/GA or FLEX to CLB.

MCT is at the same position as FLEX, and it is the thrust lever setting that you want after cleaning up from an engine failure. If all engines are running, and you push the lever from CLB to FLEX/MCT in flight, the A/T is disabled and the engines go to maximum continuous thrust. But, if an engine is shut down, the A/T remains engaged, but now its max selectable power is MCT instead of climb.

There are a number of ways that you can confuse yourself with this, especially as you don’t look at the levers as you move them. The thrust setting is shown on the primary flight display, so you need to get into the habit of actually reading it. If the engines are already at FLEX, and you want MCT, you need to momentarily pull them back to CLB, and then back up to FLEX/MCT. Any time that you go back to manual thrust, you have to ensure that the levers are moved to a position that corresponds with the current power, otherwise you’ll probably end up with an unwanted, and large, power increase when you press the disconnect switch.

On the other hand, there’s a big positive to this system. As there are no ‘go around’ switches for the pilots to push, you cannot change power modes without moving the levers yourself. So, the scenario that caught the Emirates 777 in Dubai cannot happen with the Airbus levers.

In the incident that you mention, the FO has failed to pull the levers back to idle as he’s flared. The A/T will remain engaged, and instead of letting you land, will increase the power. It’s why there’s the ‘Retard’ automatic call out if you haven’t done so by 10-20 feet.

Both systems have good and bad features. The AB system has the effect of removing the thrust lever position from the pilot’s mind, as it’s almost always being handled automatically. That can be noticeable for people like me with tens of thousands of hours. For young pilots who have spent their entire time on AB, it can convert the thrust levers into arm rests. In an ideal world, I’d like a mix of the two. The AB gates, coupled with the Boeing servo.
 
Remaining slightly OT.

I was at Amberley many years ago when the USAF was operating KC-135 tankers out of there. Their performance was calculated to maximum takeoff weight and then they were loaded with fuel to those figures. One day a KC-135 lost the water methanol injection on one engine during takeoff. Five miles south and just off runway centreline is Flinders Peak* which he flew past and eventually climbed away as the curvature of the earth allowed. Very scary stuff for everyone involved.
USAF didn't have much luck at Amberley. Cicra 1986 there was their big jet that put a wheel off the taxiway near the threshold of 33 and got bogged. Rumour at the time was that they had had a big night the night before. I'm hazy as to whether that was also a tanker or an AWAC.
 
Why would initial landing report say 1.5G but later discovered to be 3.5G?
G meter readings for heavy landings are notoriously unreliable. For that reason, pilot reports are normally the starting point for any suspect landing. As an extreme case, the A4 would regularly show readings of +8 to -3 for landing. We didn’t flare the aircraft at all, but the undercarriage had a very long stroke, and was designed for unflared landings. I doubt that the real g exceeded 2. The meters handle steady states well, but not jolts.

After a reported heavy landing, readings are taken from multiple meters across an aircraft, and normally an inspection, especially of easily damaged components is done. If any damage is found, then a much more intrusive inspection will be undertaken.

In the 767 and 747, readings of over 1.4 g were reported by the automatic monitoring system, and over 1.8 g was officially heavy. Most landings are around 1.1 g. Passengers and cabin crew start complaining at about 1.11111 g.

Very few really heavy landings result from just driving the aircraft into the ground. They might be embarrassing, but are rarely harmful. The real problem children come from landings that, for whatever reason, are skipped (not bounced) back into the air. Over-rotation from a snatched flare is a common starting point. That will leave you some feet in the air, with the nose attitude higher than you want, the power probably at idle, and the speed decaying. Holding the attitude (and even pushing a bit of power back in) will generally let the aircraft settle back to the ground. Giving up, and taking TO/GA for another go is an even better reaction. The worst response is to lower the nose, where you’ll now generate a really high sink rate, and very possibly land the aircraft nose gear first. This is the scenario that gives the wrinkled fuselages that you see in various accident reports.
 
Last edited:
Read our AFF credit card guides and start earning more points now.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

But the 1.5G was a manual printout of the interrogation of the system after landing??. Or am I missing something??
Most likely an interrogation of just one meter. But the 3 g figure did not come from any meter. Airbus calculated it from the recorded performance data. I don’t think there’s any real answer to just how much g was involved.

As I said...it’s unreliable.
 

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.

Staff online

Back
Top