Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

....A question with this if, in the example above, the BA PIC pushed the minimas as landed off the approach does that then influence the drivers of the other aircraft to continue their approaches rather than bail out head to the alternate and get in front of the queue to be refuelled?

He didn't necessarily 'push' the minima. Fog is often just forming at that time of day, and even with only a short gap between aircraft, can get appreciably worse by the time the second arrives. Other airlines perhaps, but I wouldn't expect any 'push' from Nigel. (All BA pilots are Nigel).

I've been on a few flight's where we've done some interesting things:
- aborted the approach due to do the approach not being "stable" (not sure what was meant by this (QF 767 MEL-CBR, QF 744 SYD-HKG - Typhoon in the area)

There are a whole bunch of limits that you must be within during the approach. Speed, sink rate, power, vertical and lateral offset, pitch and roll, etc, and outside of them you're basically not stable, and a mandatory go around is required.

- aborted the approach due to not becoming visual (too numerous to mention) - I'm always amazed at the rate of climb that is generated during this action compared to some of the de-rated take-offs that are done.

Go-arounds are normally derated too, but they target a particular climb rate (2,000 fpm), rather than a power setting.

 

[ChrisGibbs]

Go-arounds are normally derated too, but they target a particular climb rate (2,000 fpm), rather than a power setting.

Do the automatics adjust the power, attitude and trim of the aircraft to generate the 2,000 fpm climb rate up to a minimum altitude?

Speaking of 'Nigel' I've recently done a couple of SYD-DXB returns on EK and ran into a couple of ex Nigels now flying for EK. Is it relatively easy for a BA or for that matter QF pilot to jump across to EK? Years ago there was an ex QF guy who spent time with JAL then eventually returned to QF... Also I noticed EK, like BA, seem to run 2 sets of Capt / FO's for each of their long haul flights compared to QF who would do Capt, FO, 2 * SO's for a similar length sector. Any pro's / con's for either setup? Which Capt carry's the can if you bend something?

 

[jb747]

Do the automatics adjust the power, attitude and trim of the aircraft to generate the 2,000 fpm climb rate up to a minimum altitude?

You actually have to separate the entire concepts of power and attitude and trim.

If the autopilot is engaged (in a 747) and you press the GA switch once, a bunch of things happen. The aircraft will pitch towards 15º or so, the speed target becomes the current speed up to a max of about Vref +20, and the power initially rolls up to what the system thinks it will need for 2,000 fpm. As it settles down, pitch will be adjusted to control the speed, and the power will adjust for the 2,000 fpm. The power then stays static. It stays that way until the clean up height, when you select VNAV (or FLCH), at which point the speed target will move up, and the aircraft will pitch down to accelerate. Thrust will remain set until you change modes, either by actively selecting a thrust mode (THR), or by taking an autopilot mode that includes power control VNAV/FLCH. The big trap was if it captured the altitude and leveled off. You have to ensure the power reduction is happening by getting it out of GA. If you press the GA switch twice it gave full GA power.

If the autopilot is engaged, it automatically trims. If not, you have to just do it yourself.

The thrust is a separate entity, with the autothrottle working with or without the autopilot. If it isn't engaged for the approach (i.e. you're manually flying it), it automatically re-engages when you press a GA switch.

The Airbus is similar, but when you select TO/GA to initiate the go-around you always to to max GA power first. You can pull the lever back one notch to FLEX to get the derated version.

Speaking of 'Nigel' I've recently done a couple of SYD-DXB returns on EK and ran into a couple of ex Nigels now flying for EK. Is it relatively easy for a BA or for that matter QF pilot to jump across to EK? Years ago there was an ex QF guy who spent time with JAL then eventually returned to QF...

Plenty of FOs have taken periods off to fly with other airlines. And some choose not to come back, especially if they get offers for command. The Brits probably have an easier time, as they already have the correct European licence. Australians have to get ours converted, which is apparently a bit of a pain. I've never looked at it, so I don't know the details.

Also I noticed EK, like BA, seem to run 2 sets of Capt / FO's for each of their long haul flights compared to QF who would do Capt, FO, 2 * SO's for a similar length sector. Any pro's / con's for either setup? Which Capt carry's the can if you bend something?

I think it's a poor system for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the allocation of authority. One example I've heard of is from a mob who had a tendency to have one crew do the first part of the flight, and the second took care of the arrival. So, the first captain orders minimum fuel, but the other guy has to deal with the repercussions.

But, the main reason is that you end up with twice as many people to share the same number of landings and take-offs. In my operation, the share was pretty well exactly 50:50 between myself and the FO. If we now have twice as many captains and FOs, but the same level of operation, you've just halved their potential hands on time. Alternatively, the FOs end up as three bar SOs... Plus these systems without SOs mean that you have minimal hour people in the right seat, calling themselves FOs...and I've never been a fan of that.

 

[Mattg]

There were a lot of delays in SYD this morning which were partially attributed to the fog.

Does SYD have a CAT III ILS landing system available, and what are the requirements for aircraft and pilots to use this?

 

[AviatorInsight]

There were a lot of delays in SYD this morning which were partially attributed to the fog.

Does SYD have a CAT III ILS landing system available, and what are the requirements for aircraft and pilots to use this?

No CAT III.

CAT II only on 34L/16R. And "new" (from 2016) special authorisation CAT II (SA CAT II) on 16L/34R. This is a rule that basically takes advantage of new technology in aircraft. Being a HUD and autoland capability to runways which wouldn't previously be allowed to land below CAT I minimums.

The big difference is that runway 16L uses a Calvert-I instrument approach lighting system (standard for a CAT I ILS) compared to 16R, which is an ALSF-II (Approach Lighting with Sequenced Flashing Lights).

To illustrate this better, minimums on 16L (SA CAT II) is 101' RA (radio altitude). Visibility is 350m/125/75m. Denoting the touchdown zone/mid zone/end zone.

Minimums on 16R (CAT II) is also 101' RA. But minimums now are 300m/125m/75m.

50m may not sound like a lot, but when it's foggy and we're relying on every metre we can get before we start the approach, it matters.

Limitations of the aircraft are as per the aircraft flight manual. This includes autoland wind limits (headwind, crosswind, tailwind), and any minimum equipment needed for CAT II/III ops (windshield wipers, generators, radio altimeter, etc).

Obviously, the crew needs to be properly trained, which being part of a cyclic each crew member is. The pilot occupying the left seat is the pilot flying.

 

[jb747]

There were a lot of delays in SYD this morning which were partially attributed to the fog.

Does SYD have a CAT III ILS landing system available, and what are the requirements for aircraft and pilots to use this?

Doesn't look like Sydney has improved much since I retired. Looking at the CASA site for the approach charts, Sydney has Cat II on 34L and 16R, but no Cat III.

So, Sydney gives a minima of 101' RA (radar) and 300m RVR (runway visual range). Melbourne 16 has no minimum altitude and 75m RVR.

Crew has to be qualified. Aircraft has to be capable (not all are, though AV would be more current on that than I am). And you will also need an alternate, which may well preclude you even having a go.

 

[JessicaTam]

No CAT III.

That surprises me. Are there many AU airports with it?

 

[AviatorInsight]

That surprises me. Are there many AU airports with it?

It’s an airport cost kinda thing.

MEL on runway 16 only and PER on runway 21 are the only places in Australia certified for CAT III.

 

[NM]

It’s an airport cost kinda thing.

MEL on runway 16 only and PER on runway 21 are the only places in Australia certified for CAT III.

I assume that comes down to the cost of implementing, certifying and maintaining the capability verses the cost of not doing so. The airport and Air Services Australia are not the ones inuring most of the costs associated with the small number of fog events that are experienced in Australia. Ultimately, someone needs to fund the availability of CAT III capability and that is going to be driven by commercial costs. And when those inuring the costs of not having the capability are not those inuring the costs to implement, its the ones impacted that are the losers (the airlines and the passengers) unless they are willing to fund the remediation costs - and the passengers won't want pay through increased fares and the airlines won't pay unless they can recoup the costs, and the airports don't care because they still get paid anyway.

 

[AviatorInsight]

I assume that comes down to the cost of implementing, certifying and maintaining the capability verses the cost of not doing so. The airport and Air Services Australia are not the ones inuring most of the costs associated with the small number of fog events that are experienced in Australia. Ultimately, someone needs to fund the availability of CAT III capability and that is going to be driven by commercial costs. And when those inuring the costs of not having the capability are not those inuring the costs to implement, its the ones impacted that are the losers (the airlines and the passengers) unless they are willing to fund the remediation costs - and the passengers won't want pay through increased fares and the airlines won't pay unless they can recoup the costs, and the airports don't care because they still get paid anyway.

Yep, spot on. Sums it up nicely.

 

[jb747]

AV, what's the 737's status with regard to autoland, and Cat III? Max?

 

[Saab34]

Do you often see ice buildup at the higher levels and is it something to be worried about? What do you do about it if you have ice?

 

[jb747]

For everyone thinking about Cat III.

You have to separate Cat III, which is an instrument approach category, from an aircraft's autoland capability. Autolands can be accomplished off most ILS approaches, irrespective of their category (there's lots of limitations to this, but...). Autolanding approval for a given runway was actually given by the operator. Internally QF had various requirements for that approval, but it basically meant that chosen pilots would do autolands to a runway, until the company was happy that there were not too many issues. But, that simply meant that you could autoland....it did not lower the weather minima for the approach by one inch.

The Cat III basically improves the reliability of the ILS system, but also comes with requirements for certain types of runway lights (touchdown zone, edge and centreline), as well as high intensity approach lighting (with is also required with Cat II). The terrain leading to the runway must also be reasonably level (precluding 34 Melbourne for instance). Cat III approaches must terminate in an autoland (as there will not be enough information for a visual flare). Low vis approaches (Cat II and III) come with limitations on crosswind, though, as they're generally flown in fog, that normally isn't an issue. It was though, when landing in Dubai's dust storms.

 

[Saab34]

It was though, when landing in Dubai's dust storms.

Are these some of the most challenging conditions you have flown in? Ie dust storms. Does the dust behave any different to the aircraft vs a normal crosswind without it? Seen one in Mildura and that's about it!

 

[AviatorInsight]

AV, what's the 737's status with regard to autoland, and Cat III? Max?

Autoland yes on a CAT IIIB however, dual engine approach only. I am told that approval is coming soon for our newer NGs (and MAX) for OEI autoland to CAT II and IIIA. At the moment, we're limited to CAT I only.

 

[jb747]

Do you often see ice buildup at the higher levels and is it something to be worried about? What do you do about it if you have ice?

I don't recall ever seeing any serious icing above about FL200. In the cruise, it's always below -40ºC, and it's not considered likely than any ice will form at that temperature. Icing conditions are defined as less than 10ºC, and more than -40ºC, in visible moisture.

The aircraft engines, and in many cases, the leading edges, have anti icing systems.

Autoland yes on a CAT IIIB however, dual engine approach only. I am told that approval is coming soon for our newer NGs (and MAX) for OEI autoland to CAT II and IIIA. At the moment, we're limited to CAT I only.

Hopefully engine out autolands won't be a big consideration!

 

[RooFlyer]

@jb747 posting on another thread, I was reminded about the Qantas 'fleet grounding' in October 2011. Looking back on this thread, I was surprised to see no mention of it at the time (+ a month). Would you care to mention your experience of it?

 

[Quickstatus]

QF63

Do the 2 engines have to fly further north compared to the 4 engines?

 

[jb747]

Do the 2 engines have to fly further north compared to the 4 engines?

Answered in the other thread.

 

[jb747]

@jb747 posting on another thread, I was reminded about the Qantas 'fleet grounding' in October 2011. Looking back on this thread, I was surprised to see no mention of it at the time (+ a month). Would you care to mention your experience of it?

I wonder if this will one day be looked back on as the perfect way for management to permanently alienate an otherwise loyal workforce. Up until that time, there was absolutely zero chance of the (Qantas) pilots ever taking any form of industrial action that would actively hurt the passengers. But, as management showed that they did not care about the pax at all, and that their form of industrial negotiation would be more akin to what we now credit to Putin, post lockout, all previous bets were off. In fact, Alan still had his fans amongst the pilots prior to that event. Certainly not after.

Personally, I'd just flown up to Singapore, when we heard. That night was the biggest crew party that I've ever seen. Perhaps we considered it a wake, in any case many brain cells were killed. My 24 hour slip turned into 3 days before we flew on to London. The company still had to pay hotel and allowance costs, otherwise they'd have had issues with the various immigration authorities. My logbook shows that I was paxed back from there to Singapore, before another longish slip and then flying home. I was on a blank line, so I actually got more flying that I'd normally have had in the following weeks, presumably as they tried to fix the broken rosters. The upshot was that I was paid more than I'd normally have for a blank line.

Longer term it burnt all bridges with the pilots, who remain totally disengaged from the company to this day.