Ask The Pilot

[Saab34]

What does a airline chief pilot earn? Half a million? Million? Are they classed as a executive reporting to the CEO?

 

[jb747]

What does a airline chief pilot earn? Half a million? Million? Are they classed as a executive reporting to the CEO?

It was all a secret at QF, though there were various rumours and theories. It would have seven figures.

He used to report directly to the CEO, but as QF progressively demoted anything operational, I think the last I heard had him a couple of levels down.

 

[Saab34]

Is turnover high in such a role? Or have the CPs been the same for the last decade etc.

I recall the Group sent a QF Pilot over to J* to become its CP, however didn’t last very long.

AV, has your operation maintained the same CP pre Bankruptcy and now post?

 

[harvyk]

As a rough guess, how frequently (eg per number of flights / number of flight hours) do you have "something" go wrong on a flight?
I'm talking minor things like a warning light / message comes on which is easy to resolve / which requires no action because it's a redundant system.

I'm not necessarily talking about the sorts of things that'd make the papers, or which pax would even be aware of.

 

[AviatorInsight]

AV, has your operation maintained the same CP pre Bankruptcy and now post?

He’s on “extended leave”…whatever that means.

 

[AviatorInsight]

As a rough guess, how frequently (eg per number of flights / number of flight hours) do you have "something" go wrong on a flight?
I'm talking minor things like a warning light / message comes on which is easy to resolve / which requires no action because it's a redundant system.

I'm not necessarily talking about the sorts of things that'd make the papers, or which pax would even be aware of.

Good question,

I’d say probably 1 in every 50-60 sectors or so. Which pre covid would be about once every 3 weeks to once a month on average.

The 737 is really good I must admit. It wasn’t littered with bugs however, now with the planes sitting on the ground it’s not uncommon for a caution light to come one once a week (when I was flying more recently).

They just don’t like sitting on the ground. The things that keep coming up the most are the bleed valves and centre fuel pumps getting stuck in the closed position. Which is not a big deal in itself. There is still plenty of redundancy and workarounds to deal with the issues, but more prior planning is required.

 

[NM]

They just don’t like sitting on the ground.

Just like most AFF members, I suppose

 

[jb747]

Is turnover high in such a role? Or have the CPs been the same for the last decade etc.

No. About 6 years average for each of the ones I can think of.

I recall the Group sent a QF Pilot over to J* to become its CP, however didn’t last very long.

Very odd choice. Technically she wasn't even qualified, and wasn't someone that anyone from QF (well the line, anyway) would have thought to be a likely choice. I suspect that she filled a couple of other niches for AJ.

As a rough guess, how frequently (eg per number of flights / number of flight hours) do you have "something" go wrong on a flight?
I'm talking minor things like a warning light / message comes on which is easy to resolve / which requires no action because it's a redundant system.

It tends to vary with the time in service of the aircraft. New aircraft (like the 747-400 or A380) are full of them, with one or two per flight. That slowly dies down over a year or three. When I last flew a 747, it was probably about one every couple of months. The A380 never reached that stage, but they were generally trivia, often to do with tolerance parameters that were too restrictive. Real events were more like that one to two months.

I'm not necessarily talking about the sorts of things that'd make the papers, or which pax would even be aware of.

Which is 99% of them.

Just like most AFF members, I suppose

Reading here, you certainly get the feeling that there's a few master cautions illuminated.

 

[747sp]

I understand that the runways in San Francisco are relatively close and I was wondering what risks that may cause when a plane is on the other runway and how do you mitigate them. Is wake turbulence much of a issue taking off or landing and do you discuss parallel landing/takoff if it a risk for that flight in briefings or is it all assumed knowledge .

 

[jb747]

Wake from other aircraft used to crop up (or more correctly, down), in a number of ways. The most common effect would be wake passage on crossing runways (i.e. a departure from 34 MEL, dropping wake onto someone taking off from 27). In this case the aircraft being hit is on the ground and whilst you certainly notice it, it really isn't an issue in a large aircraft.

On parallel runways it really wasn't all that common, basically because of geometry. Wake sinks at about 500 feet per minute. For that reason, aircraft following others down the glide path rarely run into it. I looked at it once, and decided that we'd need about a 10-12 knot tail wind for it to be an issue for one 380 following another, with the 4 mile separation that was used at Dubai. For it to impinge upon a parallel approach you'd need the wind to be giving substantial cross and tail components, to such an extent that you should really be on another runway.

Of course, Dubai did operate with that minimum separation and 10 knot tail winds, and so you would occasionally run into it. Unless you happened to be in or near the flare, it was just uncomfortable. Near the ground it could be cause for a go around. Most places are sensible enough not to operate with tail winds.

 

[flyingfan]

As a passenger aboard a taxiing aircraft, sometimes I feel like due to the airport layout, we're taxiing for ages (especially after landing when I want to just reach the gate ASAP already).

What airports are best and worst at minimising the taxiing distance between gate and start of takeoff roll/touchdown (at least for the most commonly used runways)?

Which airports are otherwise best and worst at being able to taxi around easily and safely - eg. good or bad signage/lighting, crossing busy runways or taxiways, errant vehicles, any other structures on the ground?

 

[JohnM]

To @jb747, in particular.

I just came across this recent Mentour video of the QF B747 Bangkok overrun incident:

.

Have you seen it and any comments?

 

[harvyk]

To @jb747, in particular.

I just came across this recent Mentour video of the QF B747 Bangkok overrun incident:

.

Have you seen it and any comments?

So not a pilot, but I have read the accident report -> the official ATSB report clearly states QF15 was a B747-300, not a B737-800 on page 3 (page 18 of the PDF). Once he said that I have to admit I starting doubting things.

At this stage, Thai 414 was approximately 3 minutes 20 seconds ahead of Qantas 15 (a Boeing 747-300),

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24447/aair199904538_001.pdf

 

[jb747]

I just came across this recent Mentour video of the QF B747 Bangkok overrun incident:

Have you seen it and any comments?

Just watched it, though I'd seen his channel before. Basically, he does a good job of explaining what was a silly accident, and a very stupid
procedure.

Yes, QF15 was a 747-300, and not a 737, but that's a pretty minor error.

 

[Quickstatus]

I’ve always thought OJH (-400) was the airframe for QF15.

Only the EB series T,U,V,W,X,Y were -300?

 

[mannej]

I’ve always thought OJH (-400) was the airframe for QF15.

Only the EB series T,U,V,W,X,Y were -300?

Wasn’t QF1 the overrun flight?

 

[Quickstatus]

Wasn’t QF1 the overrun flight?

Ah you are right
QF1 was the off-road flight. 747-400
QF15 was an earlier 747-300flight into BKK which QF 1 followed.
Thanks…

 

[jb747]

Let’s clear up the confusion. There were three QF flights that arrived in BKK that night. One -400 came in a little before the events, and was not relevant to what happened. QF15 was a -300 and went around just before QF1, and ultimately landed after the event. After being repaired, OJH was probably one of the straighter aircraft. They all get bent and twisted through their lives, and this shows up in the trim. When it was ultimately retired, it was flown to the desert by the BKK captain…and that was his retirement trip too.

An interesting paradox in aviation is that really good pilots don‘t necessarily have the best safety outcomes, and vice versa for weaker ones. Whilst really weak ones will kill you with their incompetence, the midling people will often develop a layer of caution that keeps them out of trouble. The very good people, on the other hand, can have such innate confidence in their ability to get themselves out of trouble, that they go beyond the event horizon. I don’t know the details, but I was told once that the top third of the RAAF pilot’s course managed to have most of the accidents, though that could also be a consequence of the fact that the better pilots were also posted to the nastier aircraft.

I‘ll add a little about the procedures that caused all of this a bit later.

 

[JohnM]

Just watched it, though I'd seen his channel before. Basically, he does a good job of explaining what was a silly accident, and a very stupid
procedure.

Yes, QF15 was a 747-300, and not a 737, but that's a pretty minor error.

I did think, as soon as he said ‘737’ that it didn’t sound right.

 

[jb747]

As a passenger aboard a taxiing aircraft, sometimes I feel like due to the airport layout, we're taxiing for ages (especially after landing when I want to just reach the gate ASAP already).

It's very rare that you actually have to taxi (after landing) for a huge amount of time. The biggest delay happens when you have to wait for something, especially an occupied gate. Landing on 24R in LA, it took just on 5 minutes from touchdown, to reaching the gate.

What airports are best and worst at minimising the taxiing distance between gate and start of takeoff roll/touchdown (at least for the most commonly used runways)?

Distance is a consequence of their layout, and I can only think of one where it's more than a few minutes drive from the runway to the terminal, and that's 18/36 in Amsterdam. 36L in particular is a fair way. On the other hand, aircraft taxi at up to 60 kph, so even that 8 km taxi should only take 10 minutes.

Waiting to cross runways can be a huge delay, though generally when the wait is long it also means that there's major congestion around the terminal. I've seen aircraft waiting to cross for over an hour at JFK.

As pilots though, we sometimes intentionally add to the taxi time. Eek, you say. Well the reason is that the engines have a minimum time at idle before we can shut them down, so you can sometimes juggle the taxi speed to have the cool down delay expire just as you reach the gate. Otherwise, we'll have to sit at the gate, with engines running, and you all know how good people are at staying seated once at the gate, even if the seat belt sign is still on.

Which airports are otherwise best and worst at being able to taxi around easily and safely - eg. good or bad signage/lighting, crossing busy runways or taxiways, errant vehicles, any other structures on the ground?

Most places are pretty standard. The least standard was Vancouver, but it was also the best, using neon signs as marker boards. Very clear. The worst is probably Tokyo Narita, which is just like taxiing in a sea of blue and green lights.