Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

How much freedom do you have (outside of an emergency) to alter or ignore parts (do something alternate) of the flight plans given to you by the computer?

Pretty much total. I've re-filed in flight, and used totally different routes. Plans were occasionally rejected before the flight, when the planner has put you closer than you want to go to things like cyclones. There are all sorts of reasons for variations.

A flight plan is like a military war plan. It never survives contact with the enemy. All sorts of things can make changing the plan necessary. For a start, they take no allowance of other traffic, so the plan's desired climb points rarely relate all that well to reality. Often I'd climb early, taking a fuel hit in the short term but gaining the high ground. At times it was expedient to talk to ATC and arrange new tracks with them, whilst at others, when there was plenty of time, you could get Sydney to run a new plan, incorporating whatever you wanted, and then have that uplinked to the aircraft and to ATC.

 

[RSD]

JB747 - did you get through your recent U.S. trip without any significant delays or cancellations?

 

[jb747]

JB747 - did you get through your recent U.S. trip without any significant delays or cancellations?

The 93 was a bit late getting in to LA, but immigration was only a few minutes (!), and the only hold up was our luggage, which seemed to take forever. We were just about the last people to walk on to the AA flight, but made it. Return was all without any fuss at all.

 

[RSD]

The 93 was a bit late getting in to LA, but immigration was only a few minutes (!), and the only hold up was our luggage, which seemed to take for ever. We were just about the last people to walk on to the AA flight, but made it. Return was all without any fuss at all.

Glad to hear that all went well for you - especially given all the Qf cancelled A380 flights going around about then

 

[mjt57]

JB, how was it flying as a paying passenger? I take it that you knew the crew? And are you missing it?

 

[jb747]

JB, how was it flying as a paying passenger?

I did lots of passengering before I retired, but never in PE. It was quite acceptable, but in the future, I'll fly business, even if it means going less often.

Obviously I get to see things from another perspective. I don't like the QF booking engine much. Silly the way it builds tight connections. On the other hand, they worked, but only just. Overall the flights were pleasant enough, marred somewhat by a couple who kept their seats reclined to the maximum amount at all times.

I take it that you knew the crew?

I knew the tech crew on the way over, but not the way back. I knew a couple of the cabin crew in both directions, but they were working up the front.

And are you missing it?

Not as much as you might imagine. It's nice to be rid of the permanent jet lag that's a feature of the job. Nice also not having to have any dealings with CASA.

 

[opusman]

I did lots of passengering before I retired, but never in PE. It was quite acceptable, but in the future, I'll fly business, even if it means going less often.

How did the comfort of the PE seat compare to the pilot's seat? My impression is the coughpit seats aren't actually all that luxurious?

 

[jb747]

How did the comfort of the PE seat compare to the pilot's seat? My impression is the coughpit seats aren't actually all that luxurious?

No, I wouldn't describe them as luxurious, but they have a great range of adjustment and movement, and nobody can recline their seat back in front of you. The IFE sucks a bit though. The coughpit seat is better than any of the cabin seats when they are in their more upright positions.

 

[ChrisGibbs]

Was on AA31 on the 28/12 LAX-HNL A321 service. We pushed back on time but spent about 10 minutes waiting to start the taxi. The Captain came on the PA to say that one of the two ‘igniters’ on one of the engines had failed and we needed to be towed back to the gate to get the engineers to take a look. After returning to the gate the engineees came onboard and took a printout from the coughpit printer. Within 20 minutes we were pushing back and on our way.

As an aside the flight from LAX-HNL was around 5hrs 30m. About 45 minutes into the flight we were at FL320 and encountered some what I thought was light chop where the crew and passengers were sat down. The seat belt sign was on for the entire flight. We had the chop all the way to top of descent into HNL. The Captain said they weren’t able to find a more stable altitude due traffic and apologised for the lack of service.

the question is on many LAX-SYD/MEL flights I’ve had turbulence over the Hawaiin Islands. Typically we can’t climb due to weight limitations. Wouldn’t an A321 out of LAX have many other options?

 

[jb747]

Was on AA31 on the 28/12 LAX-HNL A321 service. We pushed back on time but spent about 10 minutes waiting to start the taxi. The Captain came on the PA to say that one of the two ‘igniters’ on one of the engines had failed and we needed to be towed back to the gate to get the engineers to take a look. After returning to the gate the engineees came onboard and took a printout from the coughpit printer. Within 20 minutes we were pushing back and on our way.

The ignitors are basically just big spark plugs. The engines normally have two. Only one is used for most starts, with the start system alternating the choice. If an ignitor fails during the start, you won't get any ignition. The start will be aborted. Depending upon the aircraft type, a second attempt using both ignitors may be allowed. It sounds like the engineers in your case came back on board, looked at the diagnostics, and probably applied an MEL, letting it depart with only one system.

As an aside the flight from LAX-HNL was around 5hrs 30m. About 45 minutes into the flight we were at FL320 and encountered some what I thought was light chop where the crew and passengers were sat down. The seat belt sign was on for the entire flight. We had the chop all the way to top of descent into HNL. The Captain said they weren’t able to find a more stable altitude due traffic and apologised for the lack of service.

the question is on many LAX-SYD/MEL flights I’ve had turbulence over the Hawaiin Islands. Typically we can’t climb due to weight limitations. Wouldn’t an A321 out of LAX have many other options?

That turbulence is almost always there. The flights to LA are often higher, but they are also often further south. It tends to be a relatively narrow area, that always seems to pass over Honolulu. Going home, we're again mostly further south so whilst there may be some bumps it tends not to be as rough as it is for the aircraft going to HNL. You would expect a 320 to be able to go higher, but we don't know what the wind and turbulence were like at higher levels. It isn't always smoother at higher levels. Sometimes it's better to descend. The US airlines just about live on the radio in that area, constantly asking for ride reports. So they are always looking for a way out of it.

 

[Quickstatus]

Rostov Flydubai crash report:

https://mak-iac.org/upload/iblock/3d1/report_a6-fdn_eng.pdf

The 2 pilot crew were doing Ok up until the 2nd GA. They briefed their 2nd approach, a 2nd GA procedure, flying to an alternate, communicated with ATC,
The PIC lost control and became disorientated during the full power 2nd GA as per windshear escape manouvre resulting in significant pitch up moment, unable to maintain a certain climb pitch, pressed trim switch nosedown for 12 continuous seconds. PM tried to assist, but ultimately flight control was lost.

(The 2nd GA starts on page 147 or so)


Would appreciated aviator comments please... Thanks in advance...

 

[jb747]

Would appreciated aviator comments please... Thanks in advance...

I'm pretty convinced that there is a fair element of fatigue in this accident.

High power go arounds have a number of effects, not all of which show up in the simulators. One is the illusion of pitching up that is caused by the effects of acceleration on the inner ear. The illusions are very strong.

12 seconds of nose down trim is a huge amount. When you're putting in trim, two or three seconds feels like a lot. It smacks of bad trim technique too, as you're trained from day one to put the attitude where you want it to be, and to then trim out the force, not the other way around. The 767 had a strong pitch response in a go around, but it was no real effort to hold 18º or so, and to trim out the loads.

We're seeing, again, that the 737 is an old aircraft too. Low visibility approaches being flown manually, without auto land, and no autopilot go around. Nothing I've flown in the last 30 years was like that.

HUDs. I've never flown with one, but I'm told that they are wonderful for very accurate flying. But, they do not give a big picture of the world. Basically a bit like flying whilst looking through a straw. As long as what you want to see is in the straw's field of view, all is good, but not so good for more gross changes.

 

[Quickstatus]

Are there any automatics in play during a 737 go around?

Re fatigue, is there a time of day when you would feel the lousiest?

Physiology suggests 0400am is the worst.

 

[mjt57]

The ignitors are basically just big spark plugs.

That gas turbines that I used to operate, old P&W FT4Cs (similiar to early B737 engines) had two each, too. Huge beasts of things. We had to test them once. Laid them out on the concrete, connected to the doohickey thing that zaps them then livened them up.

Sounded like a pair of 30-30s in rapid fire mode. Over 100kv, I think.

They could ignite water, I reckon.

 

[jb747]

Are there any automatics in play during a 737 go around?

AV will probably tell us exactly what are, but I expect that there’s a go around thrust mode (which most likely targets 2,000 rpm rate of climb) and a flight director mode (so pitch and track guidance). These would both engage with a single push of the TO/GA switches. You should be able to engage the autopilot at some point. But, the initial pitch up and speed control is manual, not autopilot.

Re fatigue, is there a time of day when you would feel the lousiest?

Physiology suggests 0400am is the worst.

0400 might be the worst for most people, but then their work hours aren’t as variable. I always found that the worst time was just after dawn. The absolute worst, was trying to fly an entire sector when you’d landed around daybreak. For instance, the first flight of the day out of Melbourne to Sydney isn’t flown by people who are just starting work, but they may have started anywhere from Perth to Singapore. Trying to get the aircraft back to destination after a diversion was always a struggle.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Would appreciated aviator comments please... Thanks in advance...

Reading this, there’s a few things at play. Firstly, the duty itself. It was a return encompassing the hours of 10pm - 6am. That‘s a real pain in itself! So yes fatigue was definitely an issue in my opinion.

Secondly, it seemed like they were fairly preoccupied with their flight time duty limits. To me it seemed like the captain had ‘presson-itis’. He seemed fairly determined to land at their intended destination. Holding for quite some time in severe icing conditions, they probably should have given it away. They had plenty of fuel on board so there was no rush to try again so quickly.

Are there any automatics in play during a 737 go around?

Autopilot automatically gets disengaged (unless on a low vis coupled approach). If the autothrottle has been left in during the approach, then yes it will command a thrust to give between 1000-2000ft/min. In both cases, the captain disengaged everything. So now it‘s manual thrust until you can get the automatics back in on the go around.

 

[QFflyermelbourne]

JB and AV,

I recall you both saying that landing towards the east on 9/27 at Melbourne was an unheard of event in the old days. Over the last three months I’ve noticed it become almost routine. They’re landing that way again today. Any ideas as to why? Surely the weather hasn’t changed. Is there a concerted effort to get planes landing that way for noise reduction?

 

[AviatorInsight]

JB and AV,

I recall you both saying that landing towards the east on 9/27 at Melbourne was an unheard of event in the old days. Over the last three months I’ve noticed it become almost routine. They’re landing that way again today. Any ideas as to why? Surely the weather hasn’t changed. Is there a concerted effort to get planes landing that way for noise reduction?

It’s a higher capacity mode allowing for more arrivals and departures in combination with runway 16. According to a friend of mine in the TCU, “they’re slowly sorting their s*** out here”.

 

[D747]

It’s a higher capacity mode allowing for more arrivals and departures in combination with runway 16. According to a friend of mine in the TCU, “they’re slowly sorting their s*** out here”.

What landing aids are there for 09? Is there an ILS? How is it higher capacity with 16 and not 34? Thanks for your reply.

 

[AviatorInsight]

What landing aids are there for 09? Is there an ILS? How is it higher capacity with 16 and not 34? Thanks for your reply.

For the aircraft that have got the equipment, a GLS is available. Similar to an ILS but no ground based aid. Otherwise, it’s just a straight RNAV (GPS based approach).

It allows for more flow, because you can have an arriving and departing at the same time. No other configuration allows this. There’s LAHSO (Land and hold short ops on 27/34 config, which allows 2 simultaneous landings, but not departures.

When 16 is in use we’ll often do our take off figures from taxiway E. This is south of the runway intersection so you can depart on 16 and have an aircraft landing on 09 at the same time behind you.