Ask The Pilot

[flydoc]

AEROFLOT FLIGHT TO MOSCOW YORK, ON THE APPROACH TO NYU YORK WAS TURNED BACK.

View attachment 272474

JB if this graphic is accurate do you think this flight would normally have the fuel capacity to do this or in this case has it maybe been lightly loaded and tanked up in case it was required to do what it appears to have ended up doing?

 

[jb747]

JB if this graphic is accurate do you think this flight would normally have the fuel capacity to do this or in this case has it maybe been lightly loaded and tanked up in case it was required to do what it appears to have ended up doing?

No need for it to be lightly loaded. It turned around near Greenland, so approximately half way, and was on the ground in Moscow with a flight time of less than normal to JFK.

 

[flydoc]

No need for it to be lightly loaded. It turned around near Greenland, so approximately half way, and was on the ground in Moscow with a flight time of less than normal to JFK.

geographically embarrassed much - brain was thinking turnaround approaching mainland Nth America ....

 

[jb747]

geographically embarrassed much - brain was thinking turnaround approaching mainland Nth America ....

I guess the map projection was also chosen to give that impression. A polar projection would have made it much more accurate, as well as portraying a more accurate Greenland.

It does throw up some interesting ideas though. All the way over, and back, would probably be on the limits of an empty 777’s ability. But, it still wouldn’t really be a viable flight. The problem is that of landing weight versus overall weight. Assuming you have a normal payload, a large airliner will need to have a fuel load of less than 30 or so tonnes at landing, as that’s likely to be the approximate margin between max landing weight, and the actual empty weight. On most of the A380 flights the aircraft didn’t get to max landing weight until the last couple of hours of the journey.

 

[Saab34]

Seems to be a few issues lately on the US domestic front with problem passengers on boarding. One video I saw last week was a guy who had a shirt with inappropriate language on it, the crew asked to cover it up or leave the aircraft. Passengers refused to listen to the Cabin crew, threw a tantrum, and then the Captain came down and asked him to take it off, however appeared to just enter a long argument, seemed pointless.

My question is, with ‘problem passengers’ down the back when on the ground, do you as PIC get involved and speak to them at anytime? I noted on another I think it was Delta the guy carrying on in his seat ‘I want to speak to the captain’. Do you have full power in regards to removal, ie arguing not listening as above, call AFP and ask for the removal. If you want someone off I assume the AFP/Authorities can’t challenge your decision? It appears some need to be dragged from the aircraft these days they literally will not leave.

 

[jb747]

My question is, with ‘problem passengers’ down the back when on the ground, do you as PIC get involved and speak to them at anytime? I noted on another I think it was Delta the guy carrying on in his seat ‘I want to speak to the captain’. Do you have full power in regards to removal, ie arguing not listening as above, call AFP and ask for the removal. If you want someone off I assume the AFP/Authorities can’t challenge your decision? It appears some need to be dragged from the aircraft these days they literally will not leave.

Firstly, have you checked your mail?

Never get involved with problem passengers. Call for the authorities, and have them removed. There is no negotiation. They can do that with the ground staff afterwards.

 

[ChrisGibbs]

Many years back QF 747's flew short international sectors (LHR-MAN-LHR, LHR-AMS, SIN-KUL, others) and on a few rare occasions (SYD-CBR-SYD)... Is the workload on these shorter sectors higher the larger aircraft (737/717 vs 747) or the same..

Over the last few weeks I've been doing a bunch of SYD-BNE-MEL-SYD sectors on a mix of 737's / A330's. Many of the flights seem to be running with more than 2 tech crew. 737's / A330's - 2 * Capt's + 1 F/O and A330's 1 Capt + 1 * F/O + 1 * S/O... Are these flights being used to get the crews up and running?.

Pre pandemic when QF were doing the QF11/12 LAX-JKF-LAX sector (744 or 789) there were times when the tech crew were 1 * Capt, 1 * F/O and sometimes there was an S/O on the fight deck as well. Was there an operational or seasonal (New York winter) requirement to have the S/O onboard or was it optional?

Some years back I was a regular on the QF81/5/82/6 SYD-SIN-SYD (A330) services. Most times the tech crew was made up of 1 * Capt and 1 * F/O... On one of the QF5 departures we pushed back started engines and commenced the taxi only to stop within seconds. Waited 5-10 minutes then taxied back to the gate due to a flap extension issue. Engineers came onboard and about 120 minutes later we were ready to go with the addition of and S/O... Would that have been due to the original 2 * tech crew running up against hours?

 

[jb747]

Many years back QF 747's flew short international sectors (LHR-MAN-LHR, LHR-AMS, SIN-KUL, others) and on a few rare occasions (SYD-CBR-SYD)... Is the workload on these shorter sectors higher the larger aircraft (737/717 vs 747) or the same..

The shortest planned sector that I ever did in the 747 (with passengers) was London Heathrow, to London Stansted. Without would have been Tullamarine to Avalon.

The aircraft are more complex, and are generally slower on the ground, but more or less the same things have to happen in flight, so they're not all that different. On really short sectors, you simply include the arrival briefing with the departure. Short sectors were done quite a bit in the sims, even in the 380.

Over the last few weeks I've been doing a bunch of SYD-BNE-MEL-SYD sectors on a mix of 737's / A330's. Many of the flights seem to be running with more than 2 tech crew. 737's / A330's - 2 * Capt's + 1 F/O and A330's 1 Capt + 1 * F/O + 1 * S/O... Are these flights being used to get the crews up and running?.

Yep. I don't think they're wasting any seats at the moment.

Pre pandemic when QF were doing the QF11/12 LAX-JKF-LAX sector (744 or 789) there were times when the tech crew were 1 * Capt, 1 * F/O and sometimes there was an S/O on the fight deck as well. Was there an operational or seasonal (New York winter) requirement to have the S/O onboard or was it optional?

The nominal crew was just Captain and FO. But, if the weather was iffy in NYC they'd add an SO, as you could need him for flight or duty time reasons. The hours flown by the C/F in the week prior to the sector could affect things too. So, whilst they would have been planned to remain below the limit (I think 30 hours in 7 days two man) if a flight had been longer than planned then that might have invalidated the planning, and so one of the SOs would be nabbed. Not optional as such, but they were there, and would be used as needed.

Some years back I was a regular on the QF81/5/82/6 SYD-SIN-SYD (A330) services. Most times the tech crew was made up of 1 * Capt and 1 * F/O... On one of the QF5 departures we pushed back started engines and commenced the taxi only to stop within seconds. Waited 5-10 minutes then taxied back to the gate due to a flap extension issue. Engineers came onboard and about 120 minutes later we were ready to go with the addition of and S/O... Would that have been due to the original 2 * tech crew running up against hours?

Sydney to Singapore was operated under a set of rules that allowed it to be planned as 8:30 two man crew, but did not offer an extension of the duty period. An 8:30 flight time, and normal before and after times, would give a duty period of 10 hours, so comfortably inside the 11 hour limit. Normally, at the crew's discretion (not the companies) duty and flight times could be extended by about an hour, but this particular set of rules gave the company 30 minutes at the planning stage, but removed the extension option.

In this case, the duty period has blown out, so that probably crossed the line for calling out the SO.

Years back, this particular service was done by the 767, and the company generally planned it as a two man crew under these rules (called the "op spec" in our manuals). Many of the Captains were offloading freight to ensure that they could arrive in Singapore with an hour's holding fuel. Even when the Singapore forecast says you need nothing...you really need an hour minimum. So, out came an edict from management that they didn't want freight offloaded, and that they'd prefer to 'take the risk'. Presumably they meant the risk of a diversion, and also presumably, they figured that said risk was low. So, the following week, they ended up with a bunch of diversions. Three out of seven I think. But it was also 100% of the -200 series, 'cos the -300 could carry more fuel. One of those diversions ended up being a termination at the wrong airport, because they were going to exceed those time limits. At this point they decided that they didn't want to take the risk, and all of the -200s were planned with an SO, and the -300s with the fuel.

 

[Quickstatus]

A loop would be in the vertical

Could it if you turned off all protections

 

[jb747]

Could it if you turned off all protections

Putting it into direct law would get you past the protections, but you'd need a pull of at least 4g at around 250 kias to have any chance of getting it around, and I doubt that the structure would support that. And even if it did, you'd run out of energy, probably whilst pointed straight up.

 

[FrustratedQP]

Is it possible to select the different laws or does the machine give you the most appropriate law given the available information available to it?

 

[jb747]

Is it possible to select the different laws or does the machine give you the most appropriate law given the available information available to it?

No, they aren’t directly selectable. If you really wanted a law change, you’d have to turn things off, so that it configures itself into the mode you want.

 

[D747]

Have any of the pilots ever had to enter the avionics bay during a flight?

 

[jb747]

Have any of the pilots ever had to enter the avionics bay during a flight?

As far as I know, no.

 

[torks]

I was on a flight into London Stansted last night and about 8 minutes before landing the captain came on the PA and said something along the lines of "This is your captain, please leave your phones on flight mode, it is interfering with our radios". Then again once we had arrived at the gate he came on again with a longer message about leaving your phones on flight mode as it becomes dangerous to have interference when in busy airspace.

I've never heard a pilot request this in the middle of the flight, just at the start. What systems on the plane would be interfered with, and how serious does it get?

 

[RooFlyer]

I was on a flight into London Stansted last night and about 8 minutes before landing the captain came on the PA and said something along the lines of "This is your captain, please leave your phones on flight mode, it is interfering with our radios". Then again once we had arrived at the gate he came on again with a longer message about leaving your phones on flight mode as it becomes dangerous to have interference when in busy airspace.

What aircraft type, @torks ?

 

[jb747]

I was on a flight into London Stansted last night and about 8 minutes before landing the captain came on the PA and said something along the lines of "This is your captain, please leave your phones on flight mode, it is interfering with our radios". Then again once we had arrived at the gate he came on again with a longer message about leaving your phones on flight mode as it becomes dangerous to have interference when in busy airspace.

I've never heard a pilot request this in the middle of the flight, just at the start. What systems on the plane would be interfered with, and how serious does it get?

In theory, it could affect just about anything. And that's the problem. It almost certainly won't, but it could, and if it's something like a rad altimeter, it could any number of embarrassing outcomes.

I have seen a 767 reacting by gentle 5º rocking from side to side, caused by a child's toy...that wasnt' even supposed to be a transmitter.

I'd hate to end up doing an autoland onto the grass verge 'cos someone wouldn't do the right thing with their phone.

 

[Kerrodt]

In theory, it could affect just about anything. And that's the problem. It almost certainly won't, but it could, and if it's something like a rad altimeter, it could any number of embarrassing outcomes.

I have seen a 767 reacting by gentle 5º rocking from side to side, caused by a child's toy...that wasnt' even supposed to be a transmitter.

I'd hate to end up doing an autoland onto the grass verge 'cos someone wouldn't do the right thing with their phone.

JB can you tell us more about the 767 rocking caused by the toy? Sounds intriguing. Thanks so much.

 

[Quickstatus]

What systems on the plane would be interfered with

Maybe the pilots were doing an autoland???

 

[jb747]

Maybe the pilots were doing an autoland???

It was a requirement to make a PA in the case of an autoland a few years ago, though I think it had gone by the time I retired. A quick look at available wifi networks generally nets many phones that are turned on, so there's a group of passengers who simply will not turn them off no matter what.