Ask The Pilot

[AviatorInsight]

On a standby shift, if you miss the call or ‘accidentally miss it’ and so on, do you get a warning or something? Please explain from HR?

Depends how late it is that you miss the call. I have been in the shower and missed a phone call but got out and called them straight back. I’ve never had any follow up calls from the senior base pilots about it.

It won’t be HR that get involved anyway and even then I’d be hanging up on them and talking to a pilot about it.

If they do give the call whilst you're on standby, do they try more than once (eg if you couldn't answer the call immediately) or do they send some other sort of message like an SMS to say your needed?

They will keep trying and trying and messaging and voicemail and smoke signals and Morse code. Whatever they can do.

Do the standby crew have to be within a certain minimum time from the flight deck?

I remember you said once you could be at home with the car loaded up ready to go. But that was maybe 3hrs to airport?. Not sure if that was a standby.

2hrs to sign on. I’ll have my uniform and bags packed ready to just put on and be out the door within 30mins of the call coming in. Gives me enough time to get to the crew room.

 

[AviatorInsight]

If you need to do a go-around, how much of the go-around route is already programmed into the FMC before you attempted the landing?

if you do need to do a go-around, do you simply re-join a STAR which'll take you back onto the right track for landing, or do you need to use a SID which brings you around back onto a STAR or is there something else yet again?

When we load up the approach into the FMC, the missed approach for that procedure is automatically loaded after the runway.

In the event of a missed approach the flight directors will track the procedure. I say flight directors because when you hit TOGA in the 737 the autopilot automatically disconnects and you are able to re-engage it above 400ft AGL.

The procedures for a non towered aerodrome are that you follow the procedure until above the minimum safe altitude. From there you can fly however you like and rejoin the approach again for another try.

At a towered aerodrome, there is always a missed approach procedure (loaded into the FMC) but the wording in the chart will always be appended with “or as directed by ATC”.

This means that ATC can direct you off the missed approach procedure (usually happens when you tell them you’re going around) and vector you around. You won’t join a SID/STAR again because you’re so close the airport anyway, you’ll just be radar vectored to join final again.

 

[AviatorInsight]

AV/JB what’s the cultures like out in the jet industry in regards to calling in sick ‘fatigued’. Is it common?

I know a Jetstar Pilot (left seat) who had some 5 day crazy roster, and the last day he called in fatigued as he was stuffed as they all became 12 hour days due delays and he couldn’t do another, he was over it. He was expecting a ‘incoming’ is all he said when I asked him about consequences.

Airlines claim to the media and in investigative reports that they always encourage pilots to not come in if fatigued. I have my doubts if management actually hold themselves to that.

I must admit the safety/fatigue culture at Virgin is very good. As a professional pilot you have a responsibility to yourself, your crew and your passengers to be fit for duty every single day.

If you are not then you manage it how you see fit. If it’s a fatigue issue then a report must be made within 24hrs and a follow up call from management made. This is not to reprimand you for going fatigued. It is merely to identify trends, and if there’s an issue present, then change whatever it is that’s causing crew to go fatigued.

If you genuinely go fatigued every now and again then generally it’s no issue. But if you play that card because you couldn’t be bothered and it’s quite often, then the airline also has a duty of care to the crew to investigate. Are things ok at home? Etc.

 

[jb747]

If they do give the call whilst you're on standby, do they try more than once (eg if you couldn't answer the call immediately) or do they send some other sort of message like an SMS to say your needed?

I’ve heard of them sending taxis to people where there were phone issues. If we needed to go off line for a short period, you could generally arrange something with them. As a general rule, the 380 call outs were very relaxed, and you could see them coming for hours. If I was standby I’d keep an eye on any flights that I could be expected to cover, and there might only be one or two. FR24 allowed to to monitor a return. If any delays started to become extensive, you could get some more info on what was going on, and if you might be needed. It helped to have all of the Captains phone numbers.

If you need to do a go-around, how much of the go-around route is already programmed into the FMC before you attempted the landing?

if you do need to do a go-around, do you simply re-join a STAR which'll take you back onto the right track for landing, or do you need to use a SID which brings you around back onto a STAR or is there something else yet again?

Most go arounds would give you a track to fly, and altitude to climb to. ATC would handle things after that. Others were more complex with multiple altitude steps and a couple of waypoints. They generally ended at a holding point. Pretty much invariably, the only time you flew the complete procedure was in the sim. In real life ATC would get you back into the sequence with vectors.

Do the standby crew have to be within a certain minimum time from the flight deck?

I remember you said once you could be at home with the car loaded up ready to go. But that was maybe 3hrs to airport?. Not sure if that was a standby.

With QF it was a bit of an historic anomaly that they required you to have left home in 45 minutes, but did not specify a launch time. It was generally accepted that 3 hours was the target.

In the event of a missed approach the flight directors will track the procedure. I say flight directors because when you hit TOGA in the 737 the autopilot automatically disconnects and you are able to re-engage it above 400ft AGL.

That’s a 737ism. The autopilot stays engaged in everything else.

 

[Saab34]

Gentlemen as always thankyou for your insight.

 

[AviatorInsight]

That’s a 737ism. The autopilot stays engaged in everything else.

Yes I know. You can imagine my frustration coming from a fully automated 777 where a go around is so quiet and controlled, to alarms blaring right at the minima.

 

[jb747]

Yes I know. You can imagine my frustration coming from a fully automated 777 where a go around is so quiet and controlled, to alarms blaring right at the minima.

On the only actual go around that I ever did in the 380, I accidentally pressed the a/p disconnect. Oops.

 

[mjt57]

Firstly, in regards to the compressor stall, yes it’s like a backfire. While I haven’t had one in real life, they’re common in the simulator. Presented as a series of “bangs” and a pulsating N1 gauge with (depending on the severity) a high EGT (exhaust gas temp) reading.

When we operated a gas turbine power station it comprised of a dozen PW engines dating back to the 60s. Basically, industrial/stationary versions of what powered the B707 (and some early B737s).

They had this habit of stalling on start-up. When standing next to one in the enclosure it was quite scary to you got used to it.

Yes, huge thumping sounds, bang, bang, then the protection would "trip" it.

I'd imagine that Joe Bloggs in 35A watching, feeling, hearing one stall would become rather worried.

 

[jb747]

Nowadays most aircraft have some form of ‘auto start’. It was invented mostly as an attempt to alleviate the effects of running into volcanic dust or extremely heavy rain, both of which had snuffed engines. It worked so well that there have been cases of engine ‘failures’ that the system had restarted before it was even noticed by the crew. Part of this system was the ability to automatically start engines on the ground. Basically you turned the system on, made sure the engine had an air supply, and then just flicked the start lever to run. It would then turn the engine over until it reached max motoring (max speed just from the air supply, but without fuel), then it would open up the fuel supply, and monitor the temperature and rpm rise. It could protect against most of the start failures, and would automatically abort the start, and then motor the engine to reduce the temperature or remove unburnt fuel. And then, after 30 seconds to a minute, it would attempt a second start, but using both ignition systems.

Before the advent of auto start (or even now in some failure/MEL cases) you needed to control the start manually. In that case there are a number of limits that you need to keep an eye on. Firstly, max motoring must reach about 15% (N2/N3) before you start the fuel flow. If you can’t get that, then you’ll need a different air source. Once the fuel is flowing, you must not have an instantaneous light off (which would mean there was residual fuel sitting in the engine), but you must have light off within 10-15 seconds. Then you need to balance the temperature rise against the increase in rpm. Rising too quickly most likely means that it’s stalled. It’s possible that starts can stagnate, in which case the rpm rises to about 25%, but then stops. Temperature will rapidly shoot upwards. Then entire cycle should be complete in about 30 seconds, with the rpm stable, and the temperature falling. The most common cause of aborted starts was failure to ignite, in which case you could keep it motoring, shut the fuel off, wait for 30 seconds or so, whilst selecting the ignition to ‘both’, and then turn the fuel on again. There were other possible causes of start failures, one of which could be worked around by having the engineers open the cowl and initiating the start from the engine itself.

Auto start was never installed on the 767s. It was retrofitted to the 747-400s. It wasn’t there when I left the aircraft in 92, but was when I came back in 2004. And of course the A380 always had it.

I can only recall one case where I couldn’t get an engine to start at all. That was on a 767 in HK, and the fuel flow was not starting when required. In that case the valve that allows the flow from the wing had failed at the previous shutdown.

 

[Saab34]

If you have dhead pax onboard causing problems, commonly seen on Jetstar, do you speak to the passenger/s warning, or just call the Feds to get them off and not even bother giving them a chance?

JB I see there was a bit of movement in the ranks between Tiger and Virgin, is this the same as QF and Jetstar? If a A380 SO or FO wants to head over to the star as a FO or CPT is it possible?

 

[jb747]

If you have dhead pax onboard causing problems, commonly seen on Jetstar, do you speak to the passenger/s warning, or just call the Feds to get them off and not even bother giving them a chance?

I never spoke to any problem children. If the CSM couldn’t handle it, and it was even mentioned to me, then they were off. Anyone who was a problem before even getting airborne is not miraculously going to learn to behave. I did not care who you are (were), and you certainly weren’t going to be able to get me fired. Bye.

JB I see there was a bit of movement in the ranks between Tiger and Virgin, is this the same as QF and Jetstar? If a A380 SO or FO wants to head over to the star as a FO or CPT is it possible?

There have been some SO/FOs who have gone there, some getting as far as command. But, as far as I know, they’ve eventually all come back. There were a number of SOs on the 380 who’d had A320 Jetstar commands. There were a bunch of ghost seniority numbers which were allocated when JQ was formed. So, anyone moving in either direction could only get a slot in accordance with their ghost number. Nobody had come the other way, as there had been so little movement that any JQ captain would have ended up an SO.

The SOs who’d had commands had gone there for FO slots, and been able to get a command subsequently.

 

[harvyk]

Nowadays most aircraft have some form of ‘auto start’. It was invented mostly as an attempt to alleviate the effects of running into volcanic dust or extremely heavy rain, both of which had snuffed engines. It worked so well that there have been cases of engine ‘failures’ that the system had restarted before it was even noticed by the crew. Part of this system was the ability to automatically start engines on the ground. Basically you turned the system on, made sure the engine had an air supply, and then just flicked the start lever to run. It would then turn the engine over until it reached max motoring (max speed just from the air supply, but without fuel), then it would open up the fuel supply, and monitor the temperature and rpm rise. It could protect against most of the start failures, and would automatically abort the start, and then motor the engine to reduce the temperature or remove unburnt fuel. And then, after 30 seconds to a minute, it would attempt a second start, but using both ignition systems.

Before the advent of auto start (or even now in some failure/MEL cases) you needed to control the start manually. In that case there are a number of limits that you need to keep an eye on. Firstly, max motoring must reach about 15% (N2/N3) before you start the fuel flow. If you can’t get that, then you’ll need a different air source. Once the fuel is flowing, you must not have an instantaneous light off (which would mean there was residual fuel sitting in the engine), but you must have light off within 10-15 seconds. Then you need to balance the temperature rise against the increase in rpm. Rising too quickly most likely means that it’s stalled. It’s possible that starts can stagnate, in which case the rpm rises to about 25%, but then stops. Temperature will rapidly shoot upwards. Then entire cycle should be complete in about 30 seconds, with the rpm stable, and the temperature falling. The most common cause of aborted starts was failure to ignite, in which case you could keep it motoring, shut the fuel off, wait for 30 seconds or so, whilst selecting the ignition to ‘both’, and then turn the fuel on again. There were other possible causes of start failures, one of which could be worked around by having the engineers open the cowl and initiating the start from the engine itself.

Auto start was never installed on the 767s. It was retrofitted to the 747-400s. It wasn’t there when I left the aircraft in 92, but was when I came back in 2004. And of course the A380 always had it.

I can only recall one case where I couldn’t get an engine to start at all. That was on a 767 in HK, and the fuel flow was not starting when required. In that case the valve that allows the flow from the wing had failed at the previous shutdown.

The auto-start on the B747-400, does this mean that you can simply pull down the start plungers and then immediately switch the fuel on and let auto-start take care of introducing fuel at the right time, or is the process still you need to pull the start plungers and wait until the engines hit a certain speed to introduce fuel?

(I believe the process is you pull down on start plungers first and then introduce fuel, however I'm interested to know if I've got the order right)

 

[NM]

I read recently that Brisbane Airport has asked for approval to increase the tailwind landing/take-off limit to be increased from 5 to 10 knots for the new runway. I assume this is to allow more operations over the bay rather than over residential areas.

Would this limit increase be of concern to pilots and how does this compare with other air ports in Australia and around the world?

 

[jb747]

The auto-start on the B747-400, does this mean that you can simply pull down the start plungers and then immediately switch the fuel on and let auto-start take care of introducing fuel at the right time, or is the process still you need to pull the start plungers and wait until the engines hit a certain speed to introduce fuel?

(I believe the process is you pull down on start plungers first and then introduce fuel, however I'm interested to know if I've got the order right)

It's only 12 years since I started one of these, so I had to look up the complete procedure. You don't need to monitor the start rpm before introducing fuel, basically just pull the start switch, and then fuel on.

I may as well just cut and paste it to you...

747 FCOM Vol 1 Rev 17_2010

Engine Start Procedure VH-OEB - VH-OEJ VH-OEB - VH-OEJ

Select the secondary engine indications. F/O PACK control selectors..............................................................Set F/O

Select packs 1 and 2 to OFF or all packs to OFF for engine start. CANCEL switch ..................................................................... Push F/O Verify messages cancelled

Start sequence ................................................................ Announce C Call “STARTING____” C

Normal start sequence is 4 then 3 individually, then 2 and 1 together, when permitted. If there are overriding operational considerations, engines may be started individually.



Engine START switch ............................................................. Pull
FUEL CONTROL switch ...................................................... RUN

Verify that the oil pressure increases.
Verify that there is N1 rotation and an oil pressure indication by idle N2.
After the engine is stabilised at idle, start the other engines.

Autostart does corrective steps for:
• no EGT rise
• a hot start
• a hung start

Do the ABORTED ENGINE START checklist for one or more of the following abort start conditions:
• there is no N1 rotation by idle N2
• the fuel control switch is in RUN, the engine RPM is low, and the Autostart switch is off
• the oil pressure indication is not normal by the time the engine is stabilised at idle.


The RR aircraft differed a bit, but mainly in the things that autostart monitored.

Autostart does corrective steps for: • no EGT rise
• a hot start
• a hung start
• no N1 rotation • no N2 rotation

Do the ABORTED ENGINE START checklist for one or more of the following abort start conditions:
• the oil pressure indication is not normal by the time the engine is stabilised at idle
• the fuel control switch is in RUN, the engine RPM is low, and the Autostart switch is off.

 

[jb747]

I read recently that Brisbane Airport has asked for approval to increase the tailwind landing/take-off limit to be increased from 5 to 10 knots for the new runway. I assume this is to allow more operations over the bay rather than over residential areas.

Would this limit increase be of concern to pilots and how does this compare with other air ports in Australia and around the world?

10 knots is stupid, and it shows how little idea they have of aircraft. 10 knots is the actual aircraft limit for many...so one knot more and you have one of those ultra quiet (!) go arounds. It will be interesting to see if CASA actually approve it.

As a general rule, Australia seems more keen on using downwind runways than most other places. But, at least you can refuse it, though I have heard ATC using projected delays as a way of forcing pilots to accept downwind runways.

It is less of an issue on departure, but it leads to longer take off rolls, less payload, more noise (because of much higher power settings), though running into an increasing tailwind can be very dangerous.

Invariably, the wind at only a few feet above the ground is quite a bit stronger. So, 10 knots at the ground might well be 20 at 200 feet. The makers come up with limits for a reason!

Australia hasn't had a history of overruns, but the way the rules are written here smacks of the frog in boiling water. Just because a past silly ruling hasn't gone wrong is not something that should be extrapolated into the future.

Landing with a tailwind...

Increases landing distance required.​

Leads to heavier use of brakes and reverse thrust.​

Often gives a longer, floating, flare, which in turn increases the risk of tail strike, and long landing.​

Increases the likelihood of go arounds.​

Increases the chance of overruns.​

​

​

 

[Quickstatus]

Regardless of local airport limits, if the pilots don’t like it they could just refuse?.
That could cause all sorts of problems for the airport if the ATC think the runway can be used and several aircraft want to come from the other direction.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Regardless of local airport limits, if the pilots don’t like it they could just refuse?.
That could cause all sorts of problems for the airport if the ATC think the runway can be used and several aircraft want to come from the other direction.

Absolutely you can refuse. The words “unable” and “require” are key words to getting what you want.

For example, with a window heat MEL we’re limited to 250kts below 10,000ft. If ATC asks us to increase to maximum speed for sequencing, sorry we’re “unable” and “operationally require” 250 below 10,000

Plenty of pilots make “requests”. For example when coming from the north, people will always request for 34L. ATC will usually come back with “do you require it?”
In other words if you don’t operationally require 34L you’ll stick with 34R.

Using the tailwind analogy, PER have a classic case of only operating on 06 and 03 doesn’t get a mention on the ATIS as an option.

I’ll do what I can to take the duty runway (no derate and max flap, improved climb,etc).

But if it means offloading revenue and I can get away with it on 03 (even with a 5kt tailwind) I’ll “require” runway 03 on getting my clearance. To date I have never been refused (unless the runway is Notamed closed or something).

 

[bogusidiot]

I never spoke to any problem children. If the CSM couldn’t handle it, and it was even mentioned to me, then they were off. Anyone who was a problem before even getting airborne is not miraculously going to learn to behave. I did not care who you are (were), and you certainly weren’t going to be able to get me fired. Bye.

Just curious as to hypothetically what happens commercially in these situations for an international flight - I guess a lot of the following doesn't apply so much for a domestic flight. Also a "full service" carrier would probably handle a bit differently to a budget airline. So, does the passenger "forfeit" their airfare or would Qantas just put them onto the next available flight, or another carrier, no-charge (same as a missed connection)? And what would happen if the next scheduled flight wasn't for some time and/or was completely sold out - would Qantas (or another carrier) pay for a hotel until availability? What if said passenger got sloshed during a transit stopover and therefore didn't have a visa for that country - what happens then if there are no "airside" hotels?

 

[jb747]

Just curious as to hypothetically what happens commercially in these situations for an international flight - I guess a lot of the following doesn't apply so much for a domestic flight. Also a "full service" carrier would probably handle a bit differently to a budget airline. So, does the passenger "forfeit" their airfare or would Qantas just put them onto the next available flight……

Douglas Adams was a wonderful writer, who invented many terms. One was very appropriate to aviation. The SEP. Basically, a pilots’ aim in aviation is to make any problems go away. This could be by fixing them. But, equally effective is simply making it somebody else’s problem - hence SEP.

So, once tossed off the flight, I’ve successfully made the issue an SEP. At that point it belongs to the airport manager. And looking back the other way, the cabin crew also made it an SEP by telling me in the first place.

The upshot is that as a pilot, I don’t care. I‘m going to look after the 99.999% of passengers who manage to be locked in an aluminium tube without losing their humanity. Remember though, we are talking about the sort of passengers who will likely make the tabloids if allowed to fly. Many others are unable to go on for all sorts of issues, and for them we’ll find as much help as possible.

 

[Eastwick20]

Just curious as to hypothetically what happens commercially in these situations for an international flight - I guess a lot of the following doesn't apply so much for a domestic flight. Also a "full service" carrier would probably handle a bit differently to a budget airline. So, does the passenger "forfeit" their airfare or would Qantas just put them onto the next available flight, or another carrier, no-charge (same as a missed connection)? And what would happen if the next scheduled flight wasn't for some time and/or was completely sold out - would Qantas (or another carrier) pay for a hotel until availability? What if said passenger got sloshed during a transit stopover and therefore didn't have a visa for that country - what happens then if there are no "airside" hotels?

I would assume that if a "problematic" passenger is offloaded due to safety reasons and it results in them being stuck in that country then it moves from the airlines control and shifts to a matter for the police and border security