Ask The Pilot

[harvyk]

Thanks JB, that's pretty much the answer I was expecting, although a little surprised about having virtually no minimums...

 

[darrend]

Thanks JB, that's pretty much the answer I was expecting, although a little surprised about having virtually no minimums...

The thing to consider is the military operate to a very different standard than civilian operations. Flying a (relatively) small fighter jet is very different to flying a passenger aircraft, recovery options for military can be somewhat more ambitious and expediant than civil operations. A number of the limitations inherent in the civil system are more relaxed in military operations (through necessity). Not sure if it is used now but there was a concept of a GCA approach that would get an aircraft down in almost any weather - visibility was not really an issue.

There are still minimum fuel requirements (in most aircraft) but not to do with reserves as such and generally limitations on operations dependent on fuel state (both at the upper and lower range and in some cases at various points in between) .

One example I can think of (and there are many) which is very different to flying around in a civil aircraft - recovery of say an A4 in a hostile environment - overhead at FL180 roll inverted, pull through to vertical, 6G pullout at pattern + 1500' - initial and pitch from there. Can't imagine too many punters going for that but it saves time and fuel as well as enhances safety considerably - and the reality is if the A/c had a flame out due fuel exhaustion anywhere along the recovery it would stand a damn fine chance of getting onto the runway in one piece - remembering of course the PIC would be well aware of fuel state and would modify pattern accoringly if need be.

 

[jb747]

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 ?

Depends upon the aircraft. The 747 still carries paper, whilst the A380 is 95% electronic. The A380 must have hundreds of entries...I've never tried to count them (update, I just tried and gave up....there are 27 categories, and over 100 in the first two alone, and they are minor systems). Most probably fall into the nuisance category...telling you something has failed, but requiring no action.

The 380 normal checklists are all actioned from the ECAM.

 

[jb747]

that's pretty much the answer I was expecting, although a little surprised about having virtually no minimums.

Not a case of having no minimums....but they were very tight compared to the civil world. The Macchi minimum was 300 lbs. The aircraft carried about 2400, and that was normally gone in a little over an hour. So, if you cut it tight, you'd be landing with about 8 to 12 minutes fuel....and that was for students too. I can only recall one case of anyone running out, and that had nothing to do with the aircraft. A4 minimum was (if I recall correctly) 800 lbs...that's in an aircraft that will consume all 7200 lbs of internal fuel in an hour on most missions. Circuit power settings, would make that last about 12 minutes.

It was sometimes an issue when dealing with the civil controllers, as most of the time we would not accept any form or holding or delaying action, and our flight plans would always say something to the effect of 'limited comms and fuel'...though we never specified just how limited.

 

[jb747]

New video here: coughpit view A380 YMML departure.mp4 - YouTube

Line up to about FL250.

 

[Major]

New video here: coughpit view A380 YMML departure.mp4 - YouTube

Interesting video, noticed you punched through the clouds after about 12 min. Approx what height would you have been at that stage ?

 

[reductionist]

Thanks for posting this JB. That's some beautiful footage right there.

What are the 3 beeps that can be heard at the 7:43 mark?

Also the single beep at 11:40?

Finally, how bumpy was this climb? As a passenger if I were to look out the window and see all those clouds I'd tense up at the thought of the approaching turbulence.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

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.

nope. we were all very much awake. this happened just after takeoff... within the first few minutes. apparently we flew through wake turbulence of another aircraft that wasn't supposed to have been where it was. it was a pretty big thump and the pax were a bit worried. even the cabin crew mentioned it (as being out of the ordinary).

 

[jb747]

What are the 3 beeps that can be heard at the 7:43 mark?

3 clicks is a warning that the autopilot has had an uncommanded mode change... In that case it was because heading was selected, which caused the vertical mode to revert to open climb.

Also the single beep at 11:40?

An ECAM alert; it was associated with the engine anti ice, and just needed a switch cycled.

Finally, how bumpy was this climb? As a passenger if I were to look out the window and see all those clouds I'd tense up at the thought of the approaching turbulence.

Mostly reasonably smooth. You can't see the radar paints, but we went around a number of large cells. We entered one small coughuliform cloud at around the 10 minute mark, which gave the biggest bumps of the whole climb, but on a scale from 1 to 10...about a 2.

The seat belt sign was on for the entire duration of the video, and I think it ends at about the time the signs are selected to auto. Given that the wait on the ground was pretty long, I expect there was a rush for the toilets at that point.

 

[jb747]

nope. we were all very much awake. this happened just after takeoff... within the first few minutes. apparently we flew through wake turbulence of another aircraft that wasn't supposed to have been where it was. it was a pretty big thump and the pax were a bit worried. even the cabin crew mentioned it (as being out of the ordinary).

I've refrained from saying so thus far, but honestly, it simply doesn't sound like wake. I suspect your man flew though some cloud (like the little bit at 10 minutes), and simply had a good story. Perhaps worth noting that the 10 minute cloud also did not show up on radar, so if you came upon it unexpectedly (i.e. at night), it would certainly give some level of surprise.

And also an "aircraft that wasn't supposed to have been where it was" really doesn't sound right either.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I've refrained from saying so thus far, but honestly, it simply doesn't sound like wake. I suspect your man flew though some cloud (like the little bit at 10 minutes), and simply had a good story. Perhaps worth noting that the 10 minute cloud also did not show up on radar, so if you came upon it unexpectedly (i.e. at night), it would certainly give some level of surprise.

And also an "aircraft that wasn't supposed to have been where it was" really doesn't sound right either.

ok ok... the qantas pilot lied!! although why they would go to the lengths of saying a plane had been travelling at an incorrect altitude/direction a short time earlier and we had hit the wake of that flight is beyond me. seems fairly elaborate I cant really think why the pilot would lie, or why the cabin crew in first class, dealing with experienced travellers, would also perpetuate that lie?

 

[Flying Fox]

New video here: coughpit view A380 YMML departure.mp4 - YouTube

Line up to about FL250.

Nice video and great 'office'

Is that you in the video we can see 'bob' forward into the shot a couple of times?

 

[darrend]

ok ok... the qantas pilot lied!! although why they would go to the lengths of saying a plane had been travelling at an incorrect altitude/direction a short time earlier and we had hit the wake of that flight is beyond me. seems fairly elaborate I cant really think why the pilot would lie, or why the cabin crew in first class, dealing with experienced travellers, would also perpetuate that lie?

I'd agree unlikey be wake but if the other aircraft were Garuda Airlines (or a number of other carriers) it is plausible they were in the wrong place doing the wrong thing. So lets call it possible Recently I was going into Las Vegas - Cavok as you might imagine. An air mexico bus came in and the controller gave him tracking and clearance limits (not below 3,000' until past 3 miles). They guy had no idea where he was (that is tragic for an airline pilot) and he was asking directions to airport, finally the contoller said - see that big spire that looks like a rocket ship - track for that when you get close turn left and the airport will be right in front of you. As tall as that story sounds it is absolutely true. There are some people flying around with some airlines that should be pax and nothing more.

 

[jb747]

ok ok... the qantas pilot lied!! although why they would go to the lengths of saying a plane had been travelling at an incorrect altitude/direction a short time earlier and we had hit the wake of that flight is beyond me. seems fairly elaborate I cant really think why the pilot would lie, or why the cabin crew in first class, dealing with experienced travellers, would also perpetuate that lie?

Firstly, cabin crew, no matter how experienced, never know whether turbulence is wake, CAT, standing wave, cloud, or anything else. They have close to zero technical knowledge of the aircraft and the environment, other than safely related equipment and procedures.

The tale remains odd. What you describe simply doesn't sound like a large aircraft's reaction to wake. And, I really don't understand how an aircraft can be somewhere it wasn't supposed to be, given that Singapore is a primary radar zone, and aircraft are very actively controlled, and have been for many years. I've hit wake hundreds of times over the years, and the only time it became an issue was when I was paxing in a 737 and it got caught in the wake of a 747...and it was all rolling motion, as expected.

There is perhaps, more to the tale, but 10 years later, it isn't going to come to light.

 

[jb747]

There are some people flying around with some airlines that should be pax and nothing more.

There is no surprise there...but I think we've already covered what I think of some recruitment schemes.

On the other hand, some places are prone to having controllers using local landmarks and even unofficial names for locations. It works a treat for the locals, but then confuses the daylights out of any visitors. I've even seen one place where the controllers became very short with people for whom English (especially the heavily accented english being used by the controllers) was not the native tongue.

 

[jb747]

Is that you in the video we can see 'bob' forward into the shot a couple of times?

No, that's John Travolta.....

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Firstly, cabin crew, no matter how experienced, never know whether turbulence is wake, CAT, standing wave, cloud, or anything else. They have close to zero technical knowledge of the aircraft and the environment, other than safely related equipment and procedures.

The tale remains odd. What you describe simply doesn't sound like a large aircraft's reaction to wake. And, I really don't understand how an aircraft can be somewhere it wasn't supposed to be, given that Singapore is a primary radar zone, and aircraft are very actively controlled, and have been for many years. I've hit wake hundreds of times over the years, and the only time it became an issue was when I was paxing in a 737 and it got caught in the wake of a 747...and it was all rolling motion, as expected.

There is perhaps, more to the tale, but 10 years later, it isn't going to come to light.

I know what you are saying, but the crew I would have thought would have had experience of flying conditions, and while they were walking around the cabin after the incident, which was the subject of much discussion, they fully accepted what the pilot had said and we were all relieved the outcome of the situation had not been more serious. none of the crew mentioned this had happened before, or that it was anything other than extraordinary.

 

[Skyring]

The guy had no idea where he was (that is tragic for an airline pilot) and he was asking directions to airport, finally the controller said - see that big spire that looks like a rocket ship - track for that when you get close turn left and the airport will be right in front of you. As tall as that story sounds it is absolutely true. There are some people flying around with some airlines that should be pax and nothing more.

I'd tend to agree with you here, but it may be that the pilot had some other problem that wasn't apparent on the radio. Airline pilots do get lost now and then, and it's only the worst examples that we hear about, such as KAL 007 adrift over Sakhalin, or TE 901 into Erebus. Neither of those guys thought they weren't on track and both of them should have been paying a bit more attention to the world outside the window. At least the pilot in this case was admitting he needed a hand, and if he had to steer by landmarks on the Strip to get down safely, then so be it.

However, I hope somebody in authority - and there must be someone in charge there, flight control isn't a roulette wheel even in Vegas - went looking to see what the problem was before clearing them for the return flight.

 

[ReLoad]

Thanks JB747, that is just awesome!

I really love doing my job, but you have a way way cooler office! Nice work and thank you for your insights, they are really appreciated.

I've a few 380 flights coming up and would love to be on board one of yours.

 

[reductionist]

I know what you are saying, but the crew I would have thought would have had experience of flying conditions, and while they were walking around the cabin after the incident, which was the subject of much discussion, they fully accepted what the pilot had said and we were all relieved the outcome of the situation had not been more serious. none of the crew mentioned this had happened before, or that it was anything other than extraordinary.

Well, your account of laterally encountering wake turbulence certainly differs from mine. In my case, there was a very loud thump but it wasn't accompanied by the turbulent conditions you're describing. In fact I don't remember it affecting the aircraft much at all - apart from scaring the cough out of some of the passengers.