Ask The Pilot

[Captain Halliday]

It’s pretty simple, as I’m (currently) still employed by VA, and I’m part of a cyclic program, my hours and requirements are with VA, so they pay for it. Crew don’t pay for any sims. Same situation applies after taking 2 months off on annual leave.

If they can’t get me a flight by the 17th May, I’ll have run out and a sim session will be required to get me current again. Whether that’s just 3 take offs and landings in the sim, or another cyclic session will be yet to be determined.

My guess is that they won’t get me current again until my sim is due (valid until end of August), or until they start standing us back up again due to increased demand, whichever occurs earlier.

Thanks.

All the best to you and your family.

I can’t begin to imagine how tough the uncertainty is - both personally and professionally.

 

[jb747]

Just a little update.

My own story writing has been a bit hit and miss of late, though I am working on a tale about bombing, or at least learning how to do it. Something I haven't had a great deal of use for in the past 35 years, but which was fun at the time. It will arrive eventually.

But, one of my QF compatriots has been working on his own aviation story. Overall it's far too large for AFF (really a book in itself), but it is full of shorter anecdotes. He's given me permission to use it here, though I'm still working on removing most of the names. His story covers an RAAF career that included the 707 and Iroquois, and QF's 747s. Coming soon.

 

[747sp]

Your post got me thinking of the differences between flying the A380 and 747 200. The 747 must be very manual when compared to the a380. So what automations has made the job easer /safer for the pilot and did any changes make it harder?

 

[jb747]

Your post got me thinking of the differences between flying the A380 and 747 200. The 747 must be very manual when compared to the a380. So what automations has made the job easer /safer for the pilot and did any changes make it harder?

Even though there is a lot of time between the 747-200/300 and the A380, I'm not sure that the differences are as great as you'd imagine.

I moved from the FO seat on the Classic 747 to the 747-400 in 1990. At that point the -400 was brand new, and in large part the training simply taught you how to convert it back into a -300. If you got confused, taking it back one step put you back in familiar territory. It was, in almost all ways, a huge leap forward, even though the majority of the changes were within the coughpit. The glass displays were logical, and easy to read. The workload actually increased in many ways though, as system management that had previously been the FEO's job was now given a touch of automation and dumped on to the pilots. Like so many things, it was easier when things were going well, but much harder when they weren't.

The biggest improvement of all though, was the autopilot. It became much more accurate. If you selected -400 fpm in vertical speed mode, that was exactly what you got. Previously it would be somewhere near that. Making it exact meant that many non precision approaches could now be flown via manipulation of the autopilot, instead of manually flying. It was easier, but more importantly, more accurate.

Going to the 767 after the -400 was a bit of a step backwards. The coughpit was Boeing's first attempt at a glass coughpit, and it still included some analogue displays. They mostly disappeared over the years. But, the 767 did have the better autopilot (and I guess got it first). My original plan when going to the -400 as an FO had been to come back to the Classic for a command, but when the time came, I preferred to stay with the glass jet, which is why I went 767.

Moving back to the -400 after the 767 was straightforward. It was described by the 744 fleet manager (who was also ex-767) as simply being a 767 in slow motion. Not far wrong.

The A380 was a very different kettle of fish; mostly because it was extremely procedurally driven. That was actually softened over the years, as it became evident that the people who wrote the procedures hadn't really thought of everything. The A380 does many things very well, but there are actually some autopilot modes that the old aircraft has, that it doesn't. For instance, it won't automatically fly a VOR radial, though of course, there are ways around that.

You need to consider what you mean by automation. None of the aircraft make decisions by themselves.

Automation has made day to day ops, when everything is working, much easier. Conversely, it has made abnormal ops, when things are going wrong, appreciably more difficult.

 

[flyer89]

My original plan when going to the -400 as an FO had been to come back to the Classic for a command, but when the time came, I preferred to stay with the glass jet, which is why I went 767.

So an initial command on the Classic was an option? Was the -400 immediately more senior than the classic on its arrival or did it take some time?

 

[Aus ATC]

For instance, it won't automatically fly a VOR radial, though of course, there are ways around that.

Is that because by the time of the A380 development, GPS was regarded by the aircraft (designer) as the primary source for navigation, and a VOR radial introduced a measure of uncertainty?

 

[JohnM]

What is 'VOR radial' please?

 

[jb747]

So an initial command on the Classic was an option? Was the -400 immediately more senior than the classic on its arrival or did it take some time?

The 400 was initially quite junior. Captains and FOs were actually assigned to it. There was always a group of people who did not want to fly the glass jets. I was initially paired with quite a senior Captain, who simply could not come to terms with it. He hated it, and went back to the Classic. He was replaced by an even more senior Captain, who loved it, and very quickly leant to make the FMC dance.

When my command slot came up there was a quite unusual confluence of events. At the time, a freeze period applied to anyone who had done a type course. So, my change from the Classic to the 400 meant that I could not be awarded any slot that would require another type course within the freeze period. At the time, it was 18 months from the date of completion. Because a large number of the more senior FOs had hung off on their bid to the 400, and came over some time after me, it meant that many of them were frozen beyond my release. If anything came up in that gap, they could not bid for it. Simultaneously, the 767 had a period with an unusually high failure rate on the command course. That resulted in many people who were perhaps a bit less confident holding off. And it also resulted in more slots becoming available, to replace the ones who had missed out. The upshot of all of that was that my turn came up well before I’d expected, and I was actually available. In that gap, there were about 10 767 slots, and a few Classic. So, yes, I had a choice at the time. I could have moved to the Classic at pretty well any time through to 2004, when I made the jump to the 400.

 

[jb747]

Is that because by the time of the A380 development, GPS was regarded by the aircraft (designer) as the primary source for navigation, and a VOR radial introduced a measure of uncertainty?

GPS has really only taken over since the 380s arrival. And it was years late. So, yes, they may have been thinking of it, but whilst you could still need to fly other forms of approach, they still have to be fitted. Now, the aircraft is permitted to fly GPS based overlay approaches that emulate all of the old ones. That works well until someone’s military interferes with the signals.

What is 'VOR radial' please?

VOR is a ground based navigation aid. Its signal is modulated in such a way that it generates 360 distinct radials, or bearings. So, if you are east of the VOR, you’d be on the 090 radial (and so on). They are old, and being withdrawn from service.

DME is a nav aid that gives distance only. If located with a VOR, then you get bearing and distance.

ADF is a system that simply transmits a raw radio signal, like any AM radio station. Displays in the aircraft will give you a bearing to that, but it’s much less accurate than VOR. Extremely old.

TACAN is a military aid that is basically a combined VOR/DME.

ILS is an instrument landing system. It’s a ground based aid that consists of two components. One gives glideslope, and the other gives centreline tracking information. It’s often combine with DME. The tracking component is called a localiser, (LOC) and that can be used without glide slope in some cases.

GLS is a GPS based landing system. It emulates the ILS, but needs no ground aids other than a beacon to refine the GPS signal. A single beacon can support multiple different airports within 20 or so miles.

 

[JohnM]

Back in about the 1980s, quite a bit was made of an Australian-developed system called Interscan (Interscan aircraft landing system - CSIROpedia) as a landing aid.

@jb747, did you have any experience of this (if it was implemented)? Or was it a victim of the advent of GPS technology?


This may not be the appropriate thread, but yesterday above PER on a NW to SE track I could see distinct twin (or possibly merged quad) contrails at high altitude around noon. Contrails over PER is unusual - made even more so under the current circumstances.

A look at FlightRadar showed nothing.

Does that mean it was likely to be a military aircraft?

 

[Mozza]

A look at FlightRadar showed nothing.

Does that mean it was likely to be a military aircraft?

I've found that often Flightradar won't show military aircraft however Flightaware does.

 

[jb747]

Back in about the 1980s, quite a bit was made of an Australian-developed system called Interscan (Interscan aircraft landing system - CSIROpedia) as a landing aid.

@jb747, did you have any experience of this (if it was implemented)? Or was it a victim of the advent of GPS technology?

As best I can tell, it was really a victim of economics. It would have cost a fortune to retrofit aircraft, which already had ‘good enough’ ILS systems. With no incentive for airlines to install it, there was little incentive for it to be installed by airports. The only place I’ve ever heard an aircraft being given (or asking for) a microwave approach is London Heathrow. Now, I doubt that there is anything it can do that cannot be done by the GPS/GLS systems.

It was interesting to note that NASA installed it for the shuttle.

This may not be the appropriate thread, but yesterday above PER on a NW to SE track I could see distinct twin (or possibly merged quad) contrails at high altitude around noon. Contrails over PER is unusual - made even more so under the current circumstances.

A look at FlightRadar showed nothing.

Does that mean it was likely to be a military aircraft?

No idea. Depending upon the weather, some flights from the ME do pass over the top of Perth. Or perhaps it’s just QF’s reaction to the ongoing battle with Perth airport.

 

[RooFlyer]

Hi pilots - this aircraft was tracking back and forward across Brisbane today, any thoughts on what this flight pattern is for? Is it some sort of land survey? After this the aircraft tracked north, orbited Caboolture several times, and then returned to Archerfield. Also lately there have been AIS tracks for a number of vehicles trundling around the Brisbane airfield.

View attachment 217131

Pls forgive a non pilot answering, but its likely to be either an air photo survey (maybe for local council planning?) or a geophysical survey (a gold mine coming soon to QLD airport?). Both require precision in line spacing and height. Might be in-fill for an earlier survey, taking the opportunity of less traffic at BNE.

 

[AviatorInsight]

What is 'VOR radial' please?

Just to add to JB's post. We can overlay an approach using the FMC (flight management computer). For example, the Hamilton Island VOR is currently out of service (due to the cyclone - perhaps it's missing?), so we can still select the VOR approach from the FMC and fly it as a GPS approach using the VOR charts. The same tolerances apply and if there's an exceedence on the approach then we conduct the missed approach and fly the actual GPS based approach (RNAV).

The only good thing the ADF is good for now is picking up AM radio stations to listen to around the country. All of our newer aircraft don't even have an ADF installed in the aircraft.

There's also a couple of other airports that still use a DME or GPS arrival (this is different to an approach). The idea is that you're on your inbound flight track and use the DME or GPS distance from the airport to "step down". For example:

Hamilton Island DME or GNSS arrival
ALL ROUTES to HM VOR
30nm - 22nm 5000ft (lowest altitude you can fly to 22nm from the Hamilton Island VOR)
22nm - 14nm 4000ft (once you've passed 22nm you can now descend to 4000ft)
14nm - 10nm 3000ft
etc
down to a minimum descent altitude (MDA) of 1230ft. IF you're not visual by this altitude and overhead the VOR you conduct the missed approach.

 

[straitman]

The only good thing the ADF is good for now is picking up AM radio stations to listen to around the country. All of our newer aircraft don't even have an ADF installed in the aircraft.

The NDBs that provide the ADF signal are gradually being decommissioned.

 

[AviatorInsight]

The NDBs that provide the ADF signal are gradually being decommissioned.

I'd say most of them are pretty much gone now. I can't recall any actually still in service and even if they are we don't use them anyway.

 

[straitman]

I'd say most of them are pretty much gone now. I can't recall any actually still in service and even if they are we don't use them anyway.

When I was writing courseware and lessons at East Sale for the PC-21 there was some discussion about whether including NDBs in the lessons was appropriate or not. At that stage East Sale and Bairnsdale still had them so it was included in the lessons. (Easy to take out later)

I don't recall though whether the PC-21 has an ADF fitted or not.

 

[mjt57]

The only good thing the ADF is good for now is picking up AM radio stations to listen to around the country. All of our newer aircraft don't even have an ADF installed in the aircraft.

Can your car radio pick up these signals? If so, what would you hear?

 

[straitman]

Can your car radio pick up these signals? If so, what would you hear?

Most/all NDBs are outside the frequency range of a car radio. eg East Sale is 350Khz and Bairnsdale is 212Khz.
All you hear is the Morse Code Ident ESL or BNS

 

[AviatorInsight]

Most of the NDB frequencies were below the normal band that you could pick up in your car. But what we would hear would be the Morse code ident of the aid. It ensures you’re using the correct one as there could be other stations within range and the same frequency.

The same applies to VORs. However they also have an AM voice capability (not applicable to NDBs). This is great if you’ve got a Comm panel failure for example and you’ve still got a VOR available on the navigation panel, you can still receive instructions from ATC.