Ask The Pilot

[AviatorInsight]

Pulling the CDU (or FMC) CB to force a reset?

Never thought of doing it really and I’m sure I’d have to do it while captains were on the walkaround…

Usually when I switch from DATA to a VHF frequency on VHF3 it’ll clear it but in this case it didn’t.

 

[AviatorInsight]

6 months on and I’ve had to do a line check in the aeroplane which had expired followed by my standard cyclic check.

Looking back over the last 12 months in my logbook shows that I had only flown around 100hrs in the last 15 months. Compared to the previous year. When I was doing around 850 in 12 months.

The sim had training on day 1 (approved by CASA) instead of the check because of the inconsistencies of hours over the last little bit.

Day 1
This had a multitude of just box ticking exercises aimed at cold weather operations. The line orientated exercise (done as a crew) started off on a 1°c morning in Canberra, (flight planned to MEL) with Freezing Fog. Plenty of discussion and the need for “de icing” and we were pushing back from the gate with an engine problem on the push. A quick run of the checklist and a normal start was now completed.

Taxiing out was in 350m visibility (the minimum for CBR). With the captain as pilot flying, once we got airborne and a positive rate was achieved, I pulled the gear lever up but we got both 3 red lights and 3 green lights at the same time. With performance not an issue we continued climbing to a safe altitude where we could pull out the gear disagree checklist. This was identified by the gear remaining down despite the lever being in the UP position.

A quick calculation from the paper Quick Reference Handbook (with some interpolation required) showed we would run out of fuel if we continued to Melbourne. Canberra was out of the question (weather was below minimas), so we declared to go to Sydney. We continued climbing to the highest we could at the weight we were at. On the way a headwind meant that we were now burning more fuel. The wind at Sydney was 140° at 15kts and the duty runway was 16R. We determined if we stayed on the STAR with extra track miles on 16R we would be landing below our fixed reserve (and an appropriate MAYDAY call would need to be made), so we elected for a straight in approach to runway 07 instead and landed just above reserves.

End of exercise.

Next up was a max crosswind take off and landing each (34kts Takeoff and 40kts Landing)

A 125m visibility take off with a rejected take off.

A circling approach into Kalgoorlie for me with a DME arrival to the minima.

A hand flown raw data ILS each with an engine failure on final.

Finally a couple of upset recoveries each.

Day 2

Overall much quicker. The captain’s exercise was an APU fire just above transition with a diversion to Canberra for an GPS (RNP) approach to runway 17.

Mine was a standard engine failure at V1 on 16R with a straight return to land and a single engine missed approach. Once the missed approach was completed I got repositioned back to complete the single engine landing.

After those 2 exercises and a quick break we got repositioned to Canberra for a terrain escape manoeuvre each.

Finally, about 3 low visibility approaches (autoland) in MEL. The first one there was no failure. The second one was Category 3A with the loss of the autothrottle (which meant a reversion to Category 2 but conditions were below that) so a missed approach was conducted. Which might I add that in an autoland set up both autopilots are engaged. Because of this, if a missed approach is to be made then they still remain engaged, and it doesn’t kick out like on a normal single channel approach.
Finally the last one had the standby instrument fail which was just a continue to autoland.

Check Complete.

Now that the check was done in around 2.5hrs we still had a bit of time, and seeing as we would be getting familiar with the MAX sim over the next 6 months, we decided to fire it up and go a burn with a circuit each around Brisbane.

The simulator itself is very impressive and comes with the new car smell. The sounds and visuals are amazing. The main instrument panel is a complete replica of the 787, while the overhead panel is exactly the same (sigh) and the centre console is the same as the latest NG versions that come with ACARS and GLS capabilities (it’s like an ILS but with no ground based aids).

The aircraft “performed” quite well and was very responsive. While it was set up for MAX8 (Ansett Aviation have not yet reconfigured it for our model MAX10) it was definitely a lot more “pitchy” than the NG.

There are a lot more differences than I first thought and couldn’t believe Boeing would let pilots fly it with just a PowerPoint presentation. We will be having at least 3 simulator sessions and a couple more upset recovery sessions in to to fully familiarise ourselves with the aircraft. In addition to that my understanding is everyone will need to do at least one cyclic check in the sim to be “checked out” on the aircraft. Not to mention the online learning that will need to be done beforehand.

While all the gear is impressive, this really needs to be the last “update”. It has gotten out of hand with modern technology mixed in with 1960s technology and the need for a paper Quick Reference Handbook checklist.

Lets see how it actually flies when they get here.

 

[RailFlyer]

Out of curiosity.... could the pilots (both JB and AI) describe how they would get their aircraft on the ground in the following event:

You are flying directly overhead a viable airport for their aircraft type at high altitude and normal cruise speed and you get a cargo fire warning. No other airports anywhere near. Situation is dire (reports of smoke and floor getting hot, fire suppression isn't working etc.) although all systems are still functioning, how do you get it down on the ground and lose the speed/energy ASAP? Some kind of rapid (controlled) decreasing radius, spiral decent?

 

[AviatorInsight]

Out of curiosity.... could the pilots (both JB and AI) describe how they would get their aircraft on the ground in the following event:

You are flying directly overhead a viable airport for their aircraft type at high altitude and normal cruise speed and you get a cargo fire warning. No other airports anywhere near. Situation is dire (reports of smoke and floor getting hot, fire suppression isn't working etc.) although all systems are still functioning, how do you get it down on the ground and lose the speed/energy ASAP? Some kind of rapid (controlled) decreasing radius, spiral decent?

Yes exactly, an emergency descent. Idle thrust, speedbrakes out and descend at maximum speed. The help it out further and not in the checklist, I’d drop the landing gear (most likely needed on the 737 because the speedbrakes aren’t highly effective), which can be done at maximum speed to further increase the rate of decent and control the speed to start the flap sequence for landing.

 

[Saab34]

How long do you think that would take on that above example from cruise to gear on the ground , 10 mins?

I remember doing some form of crab technique, opposite rudder and aileron, my instructor taught way back in the day to burn height whilst maintaining airspeed. Can this be done in a Jet also?

 

[AviatorInsight]

How long do you think that would take on that above example from cruise to gear on the ground , 10 mins?

I remember doing some form of crab technique, opposite rudder and aileron, my instructor taught way back in the day to burn height whilst maintaining airspeed. Can this be done in a Jet also?

Can it be done? Yes. Look at Air Canada Flight 143.

Is it advisable? No. The high side loads could do damage to the engine pylons at high speeds. Likewise with the high aerodynamic loads on the control surfaces at high speeds. Look at American Airlines Flight 587.

The rudder in a large transport aircraft is typically used for trim, engine failure, and crosswind takeoff and landing. That is it.

 

[jb747]

Out of curiosity.... could the pilots (both JB and AI) describe how they would get their aircraft on the ground in the following event:

You are flying directly overhead a viable airport for their aircraft type at high altitude and normal cruise speed and you get a cargo fire warning. No other airports anywhere near. Situation is dire (reports of smoke and floor getting hot, fire suppression isn't working etc.) although all systems are still functioning, how do you get it down on the ground and lose the speed/energy ASAP? Some kind of rapid (controlled) decreasing radius, spiral decent?

30º angle of bank. Full speed brake. About .87 into 330 knots. Reduce to 240 knots in level flight at about 3,000' and 15 miles to run. Take the gear approaching the glide path, letting it decelerate but still maintaining level. Flap 2 as you hit the glide path. You can't let it stay fast as it hits the glide path, as it just won't slow down and go down, simultaneously.

The fin of an A380 probably has a similar area to the wing of a 737. The side force involved in sideslip is huge. Too huge. The FBW would fight you too, as it doesn't like sideslip. Not a viable way to be flying on instruments either.

 

[jb747]

Finally, about 3 low visibility approaches (autoland) in MEL. The first one there was no failure. The second one was Category 3A with the loss of the autothrottle (which meant a reversion to Category 2 but conditions were below that) so a missed approach was conducted. Which might I add that in an autoland set up both autopilots are engaged. Because of this, if a missed approach is to be made then they still remain engaged, and it doesn’t kick out like on a normal single channel approach.

If the a/p remains engaged in a dual channel go-around, why don't you always set it up this way? We always engaged everything, even if the approach was only going to be automatically flown for a small proportion.

The simulator itself is very impressive and comes with the new car smell.

It won't take long for that to be replaced by the scent of fear (and loathing).

 

[AviatorInsight]

If the a/p remains engaged in a dual channel go-around, why don't you always set it up this way? We always engaged everything, even if the approach was only going to be automatically flown for a small proportion.

I asked the Checkie that exact same question.

The reason, is that at 400ft the AP puts in a huge amount of back trim ready for the go around. So if we were to do that in Cat I conditions or better and we disconnect the AP for a manual landing then there’s the risk of pilots not being ready to counteract the pitch up but the AP actively pushes forward on the control column to maintain the slope.

Could we have a 400’ limitation on a dual AP approach? Absolutely! Is the reason we’re not doing it because it makes sense? More than likely. That and for some reason Boeing don’t talk about it in the FCOM for normal approaches, so it’s technically not SOP.

 

[mjt57]

6 months on and I’ve had to do a line check in the aeroplane which had expired followed by my standard cyclic check.

Looking back over the last 12 months in my logbook shows that I had only flown around 100hrs in the last 15 months. Compared to the previous year. When I was doing around 850 in 12 months.

The sim had training on day 1 (approved by CASA) instead of the check because of the inconsistencies of hours over the last little bit.

Day 1
This had a multitude of just box ticking exercises aimed at cold weather operations. The line orientated exercise (done as a crew) started off on a 1°c morning in Canberra, (flight planned to MEL) with Freezing Fog. Plenty of discussion and the need for “de icing” and we were pushing back from the gate with an engine problem on the push. A quick run of the checklist and a normal start was now completed.

Taxiing out was in 350m visibility (the minimum for CBR). With the captain as pilot flying, once we got airborne and a positive rate was achieved, I pulled the gear lever up but we got both 3 red lights and 3 green lights at the same time. With performance not an issue we continued climbing to a safe altitude where we could pull out the gear disagree checklist. This was identified by the gear remaining down despite the lever being in the UP position.

A quick calculation from the paper Quick Reference Handbook (with some interpolation required) showed we would run out of fuel if we continued to Melbourne. Canberra was out of the question (weather was below minimas), so we declared to go to Sydney. We continued climbing to the highest we could at the weight we were at. On the way a headwind meant that we were now burning more fuel. The wind at Sydney was 140° at 15kts and the duty runway was 16R. We determined if we stayed on the STAR with extra track miles on 16R we would be landing below our fixed reserve (and an appropriate MAYDAY call would need to be made), so we elected for a straight in approach to runway 07 instead and landed just above reserves.

End of exercise.

Next up was a max crosswind take off and landing each (34kts Takeoff and 40kts Landing)

A 125m visibility take off with a rejected take off.

A circling approach into Kalgoorlie for me with a DME arrival to the minima.

A hand flown raw data ILS each with an engine failure on final.

Finally a couple of upset recoveries each.

Day 2

Overall much quicker. The captain’s exercise was an APU fire just above transition with a diversion to Canberra for an GPS (RNP) approach to runway 17.

Mine was a standard engine failure at V1 on 16R with a straight return to land and a single engine missed approach. Once the missed approach was completed I got repositioned back to complete the single engine landing.

After those 2 exercises and a quick break we got repositioned to Canberra for a terrain escape manoeuvre each.

Finally, about 3 low visibility approaches (autoland) in MEL. The first one there was no failure. The second one was Category 3A with the loss of the autothrottle (which meant a reversion to Category 2 but conditions were below that) so a missed approach was conducted. Which might I add that in an autoland set up both autopilots are engaged. Because of this, if a missed approach is to be made then they still remain engaged, and it doesn’t kick out like on a normal single channel approach.
Finally the last one had the standby instrument fail which was just a continue to autoland.

Check Complete.

Now that the check was done in around 2.5hrs we still had a bit of time, and seeing as we would be getting familiar with the MAX sim over the next 6 months, we decided to fire it up and go a burn with a circuit each around Brisbane.

The simulator itself is very impressive and comes with the new car smell. The sounds and visuals are amazing. The main instrument panel is a complete replica of the 787, while the overhead panel is exactly the same (sigh) and the centre console is the same as the latest NG versions that come with ACARS and GLS capabilities (it’s like an ILS but with no ground based aids).

The aircraft “performed” quite well and was very responsive. While it was set up for MAX8 (Ansett Aviation have not yet reconfigured it for our model MAX10) it was definitely a lot more “pitchy” than the NG.

There are a lot more differences than I first thought and couldn’t believe Boeing would let pilots fly it with just a PowerPoint presentation. We will be having at least 3 simulator sessions and a couple more upset recovery sessions in to to fully familiarise ourselves with the aircraft. In addition to that my understanding is everyone will need to do at least one cyclic check in the sim to be “checked out” on the aircraft. Not to mention the online learning that will need to be done beforehand.

While all the gear is impressive, this really needs to be the last “update”. It has gotten out of hand with modern technology mixed in with 1960s technology and the need for a paper Quick Reference Handbook checklist.

Lets see how it actually flies when they get here.




View attachment 248608View attachment 248609View attachment 248610

Nice big screens. Love aviation HMI. So easy to read and to use.

I "flew" the 737-800 sim (Flight Experience in Melbourne) as a 50th birthday present. I found the simulation to be amazing. External visuals aside the coughpit instruments, switches and other controls were amazing.

It was a great experience. Just wish that it was dynamic, not a static one.

The other sim, out at Essendon Airport (Flight Deck Experience) was an A320. Did that last year. Basically an open setup, still with the coughpit and external wrap-around screen, but look behind you or over to the side and you're looking out at a row of seats and a bank of networked PCs.

A lot of fun and you get an appreciation of what goes on up on the flight deck.

 

[Saab34]

Jb
I notice A320 when rolling has Forward sidekick movement for what appears to be the first 1/3 of the takeoff. Is this also done in the 380? (And why?)

 

[jb747]

Jb
I notice A320 when rolling has Forward sidekick movement for what appears to be the first 1/3 of the takeoff. Is this also done in the 380? (And why?)

Applying forward stick increases the load on the nose gear, and so increases the effect of nose gear steering. There isn't much of a load increase at the very low speeds, but.... At that 1/3rd point, you'd be at about 60 kias, at which point the rudder will overwhelm the nose gear steering, and so it would become pointless.

It's an effect to be aware of, but it isn't a procedure that I recall from the 380. I don't have the training manuals from the 767/747 but I think it was mentioned there.

 

[jb747]

Nice big screens. Love aviation HMI. So easy to read and to use.

Screen and display design is quite an art form, with various attempts along the way to change the way pilots see things, pretty well all of which have failed. You’ll note that the engine displays in AV’s image are emulations of the old analogue instruments. Easy to read and to predict motion on.

In large part the displays here are simply using large screens to replace smaller ones, and then dividing the screens up so that they’re similar to the screens they replaced. The aim is simply less screens, not a change in ease or workflow for the pilots. It’s an accountant’s move.

It’s easy to have data buried in a screen, so for that reason, information not being used should be hidden, and items should not share locations on the same screen (in the same way that switches should not have unrelated functions).

 

[Saab34]

AV has your company stood down a large chunk of its pilots and crew with Victoria largely out of service for what appears will be this entire month?

 

[AviatorInsight]

AV has your company stood down a large chunk of its pilots and crew with Victoria largely out of service for what appears will be this entire month?

No one has had a full time roster in over a year. We were on track for the next roster period (coming up in just over a week) to get our first full time roster (and much needed salary!) back but Victoria’s lockdown had other plans and now it looks like a 75% roster with a whole heap of reserve days thrown in there.

So the first week will more than likely be a leave without pay week.

I hope this yo-yo of stand up and stand down doesn’t go on for too much longer. I’m grateful I can ride it out for a little bit more but there’s a lot of pilots out there who are in a lot worse situations than I’m in right now.

 

[ChrisGibbs]

What considerations need to be taken into account when flying an aircraft that typically cruises at a typical FL310-FL410 at a much lower level of say 9,000ft. Earlier this week the QF737 that sustained hull damage from a baggage tug vs plane encounter flew for Perth - Sydney at 9,000ft for 6hrs+ What else besides weather, endurance, alternates, etc would come into play. For Boeing aircraft would QF ship spares and expertise from Boeing to do the repair or would they do it locally?

IIRC an Emirates A340 had a tail strike departing Melbourne back in March 2009. It ended up being be ferried from Melbourne to Airbus in Toulouse via Perth, Singapore, Dubai and Cairo flying below 12,000ft. The fuel burn alone would have made this a costly exercise.

 

[jb747]

What considerations need to be taken into account when flying an aircraft that typically cruises at a typical FL310-FL410 at a much lower level of say 9,000ft. Earlier this week the QF737 that sustained hull damage from a baggage tug vs plane encounter flew for Perth - Sydney at 9,000ft for 6hrs+ What else besides weather, endurance, alternates, etc would come into play.

I haven't seen any pictures of the damage, but my guess would be that there was no frame damage. If it was just skin damage, then structurally the aircraft is sound.

Flying at a lower level, is, in itself, a non event. Aircraft do so on every flight. For this sort of flight though, the biggest issue would be the increased fuel burn/mile. That's really just covered with a bit of planning. The flight would be outside of controlled airspace, and you'd possibly have a bit more weaving required to avoid weather.

For Boeing aircraft would QF ship spares and expertise from Boeing to do the repair or would they do it locally?

I'd expect QF to do the repair themselves. Boeing do get involved in major work (i.e. QF30), but this sounds pretty trivial.

IIRC an Emirates A340 had a tail strike departing Melbourne back in March 2009. It ended up being be ferried from Melbourne to Airbus in Toulouse via Perth, Singapore, Dubai and Cairo flying below 12,000ft. The fuel burn alone would have made this a costly exercise.

That repair was very major. I have a vague memory of hearing that Airbus actually bolted the back of another aircraft on, to remove the damage.

 

[flydoc]

Maybe a little out of scope, but seems the best thread to ask initially:

The commencement of the QQ E190 wetlease flights on the ADL-ASP-DRW corridor has brought some schedule changes, including QF 1957 ASP-ADL, ETD 1855 M-F & Sun. The previous latest scheduled departure ex-ASP was around 1730 (to DRW).

My understanding is that where they are not onsite 24/7, the Aviation Rescue Firefighters are required to be on station for around an hour following the actual departure of the last RPT service. Is this correct? If so, who wears the extra cost to have ARFF on site in ASP for around 90min longer than previously - Airservices Australia or another party?

 

[jb747]

The provision of firefighters comes under various rules, but the upshot is that they don't necessarily need to be there, so there's no guarantee that there has been any change at all.

 

[Quickstatus]

Q; Engine out at takeoff / landing. Aircraft starts roll - wing drops

Why does correcting Roll with ailerons exacerbate the roll?