Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

JB, they are resurfacing Runways 16/34 in Melbourne for the next year commencing next week between 12am-7am. This was last done in 2011. Did this impact you back then, and would you take 27/09 if available? I have not seen many A380's take 27/09, I recall one EK Pilot on the radio once seemed very uncomfortable to use 27 when they were late and missed the closing runway time.

Unfortunately, I don't have the performance application any more, so I can't give you exact answers on the runway requirements, but it's fair to say that 27/09 is uncomfortably short, and probably not tenable at all in if it's wet. Thinking about it, I cannot recall landing the 380 on it at all (though I took the Boeings there many times). We considered 25 in Sydney to be short, and it's a few hundred metres longer. Having said that, it was viable if it was dry, and especially if there was some wind....it's just that I preferred a crosswind to a short runway.

I assume a 27 takeoff is out of the question with a A380 also?

I do recall taking off from 27. You won't be able to get enough weight to make a long flight viable, so you won't be going to LA or Dubai, but with a bit of wind Singapore should be possible, and anywhere domestic even if calm.

 

[Major]

@AviatorInsight, have you had any interesting SIM sessions recently ?

 

[AviatorInsight]

@AviatorInsight, have you had any interesting SIM sessions recently ?

I did have my cyclic last week. Was a very simple couple of days that focused on the FOs running the exercise this time. In real life, the captain would handle the emergency, so this was a chance for us to practice our decision making skills.

But seeing as you asked, here was this cyclic. Enjoy!

Day 1. Check Day - Cold Weather Operations
Started off at the holding point for runway 21 at Perth for a departure to Melbourne. Normal departure with weather avoidance on the climb out. That transitioned into a severe turbulence event. Once we were through that, passing around FL200, we got severe engine damage (engine seizure).

First things first was to prioritise flying the aircraft. Once the engine was secure, then we made a plan to return to Perth, given the weather conditions, at the nearest suitable alternates. I handed control over to the captain so I could talk to the CM, company, pax, set up for the arrival and the brief.

The exercise called for a holding pattern so I decided to do one on the STAR (standard arrival route) above the cloud (just so we weren't holding in icing conditions), then continued on with the approach which was a single engine ILS for runway 21. We were given runway 24 as part of the clearance but I "required" runway 21 as it's much longer and less track miles.

On the landing roll, the engine caught fire which at 60kts the captain naturally took over. After firing both fire extinguishers into the engine and the fire was still burning, we ran the evacuation checklist.

End of exercise.

Next up was a series of exercises to tick off as part of the instrument rating renewal. This was a lot of stop/start/repositioning.
- single engine approach and missed approach.
- A couple of rejected take offs.
- Full and limited panel unusual attitude recovery.
- Captain circling approach and landing in Launceston.
- FO - RNAV (GPS) Approach without the use of VNAV (so basic mode vertical speed only).
- Captain - RNAV (GPS) Approach hand flown with autothrottle and flight director available.

End of day one.

Day 2. Training Day.
This was essentially a line flight from Canberra to Melbourne (captain as pilot flying) with a few failures along the way. The exercise starts off on the gate with a broken APU. This required us to start one engine on the bay and then do a cross bleed start once the pushback has been completed.

During the taxi out the autothrottle fails. A quick look at the dispatch deviations guide (the big book that allows permissible unserviceabilities) allowed us to continue to Melbourne as the weather conditions were good and no autoland would be taking place.

Enroute, the forward fuel pump fails in the left main tank. This just required us to run the checklist and any considerations for the "next flight". Once we levelled off, the generator on the number 1 engine fails. This combined with the APU means we now only have one remaining generator source and this requires us to land at the nearest suitable airport. Funnily enough Melbourne was a great option.

Land and hold short operations were in use so that required us to pull up before the intersection of runway 27.

End of exercise.

Next up were a series exercises at Ayers Rock. First was a low speed and high speed rejected take off. Followed by, maximum crosswind and tailwind landings. Finally, a minimum visibility (8km visibility) circuit for each of us.

End of day two.

 

[Saab34]

Is it easier than it sounds?

 

[AviatorInsight]

Is it easier than it sounds?

I must admit I was waiting for the “gotcha”, but it really was a fairly straightforward exercise. Having watched plenty of captains over the years, I have seen a lot with how others deal with faults/incidents.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned over the years, it’s to first fly the plane. Everything else comes second.

 

[747sp]

I have noticed over the last few days that occasionally QF2 is flying almost directly east to over Tajikistan and then almost heading south to India and Singapore rather than going over the Persian Gulf. This appears different to others flying from London to Singapore and I was wondering why? Also there are the mountains in that area and would they cause issues if there is a decompression event?

 

[jb747]

I have noticed over the last few days that occasionally QF2 is flying almost directly east to over Tajikistan and then almost heading south to India and Singapore rather than going over the Persian Gulf. This appears different to others flying from London to Singapore and I was wondering why? Also there are the mountains in that area and would they cause issues if there is a decompression event?

It was a route that was occasionally used in my time, though Ukraine and Russian airspace were not issues then. There's likely to be much more congestion on routes in the region, than there was in the past, as so many have become unavailable, due to various bits of silliness. It had some of the highest safety heights on the network, and required the Captain to be on the flight deck for the period over the mountains. From memory they got up around the 20,000' mark. Flying through in daylight, the rocks weren't very far away.

The safety height is the lowest level that you can descend to, for any reason. So, if you have a depressurisation in one of these regions, you'll have to stay fairly high, no lower than the safety height, with everyone on oxygen, until you get past those safety heights. Aircraft with limited amounts of passenger oxygen (i.e. the chemical generator systems) will probably be unable to use these routes at all.

 

[flyer89]

It was a route that was occasionally used in my time, though Ukraine and Russian airspace were not issues then. There's likely to be much more congestion on routes in the region, than there was in the past, as so many have become unavailable, due to various bits of silliness. It had some of the highest safety heights on the network, and required the Captain to be on the flight deck for the period over the mountains. From memory they got up around the 20,000' mark. Flying through in daylight, the rocks weren't very far away.

The safety height is the lowest level that you can descend to, for any reason. So, if you have a depressurisation in one of these regions, you'll have to stay fairly high, no lower than the safety height, with everyone on oxygen, until you get past those safety heights. Aircraft with limited amounts of passenger oxygen (i.e. the chemical generator systems) will probably be unable to use these routes at all.

What were some of the escape routes in that region given that there’s a few unfriendly places in the vicinity.

 

[jb747]

What were some of the escape routes in that region given that there’s a few unfriendly places in the vicinity.

The unfriendliness has come in degrees. Until 2014 or so, you might have considered Simferopol, Kiev, or any number of places in Russia.

We had the escape routes on booklets, that we kept open and continually briefed as we traveled along. The plan might be to immediately turn back to a certain waypoint, and to then track to another route. It might tell you to continue until a waypoint, and then to diverge. The outcome varied as you moved along. The aim of the escape routes was to get you out of the high terrain areas, where you went to after that was something for you to decide at the time. It's a calculation that the Captain makes any time there is a major problem. How badly do you want the aircraft on the ground. Do you care if it ever flies again. So, a fire, you might take anything painted black, but for a less major problem you'll want an airport appropriate to the aircraft.

So, Dushanbe might be okay if you're desperate, but otherwise Taskent, Baku, or somewhere in the Gulf might be a better option. One set of old notes has this list....Ankara, Aktyubinsk, Ashghabad, Baku, Istanbul, Kiev, Moscow, Simperopol, Tashkent, Trabzon as the major options.

 

[VPS]

Flying VA Adelaide to Melbourne on Sunday. We were on descent getting close to landing and took off again. Apparently a passenger had decided to go to the toilet. I could see the staff gesturing to them but the staff didn’t get up out of their seats. Does that happen often?

 

[D747]

The unfriendliness has come in degrees. Until 2014 or so, you might have considered Simferopol, Kiev, or any number of places in Russia.

We had the escape routes on booklets, that we kept open and continually briefed as we traveled along. The plan might be to immediately turn back to a certain waypoint, and to then track to another route. It might tell you to continue until a waypoint, and then to diverge. The outcome varied as you moved along. The aim of the escape routes was to get you out of the high terrain areas, where you went to after that was something for you to decide at the time. It's a calculation that the Captain makes any time there is a major problem. How badly do you want the aircraft on the ground. Do you care if it ever flies again. So, a fire, you might take anything painted black, but for a less major problem you'll want an airport appropriate to the aircraft.

So, Dushanbe might be okay if you're desperate, but otherwise Taskent, Baku, or somewhere in the Gulf might be a better option. One set of old notes has this list....Ankara, Aktyubinsk, Ashghabad, Baku, Istanbul, Kiev, Moscow, Simperopol, Tashkent, Trabzon as the major options.

JB was that level of preparedness your SOP, Qantas SOP or all pilot's SOP?

 

[jb747]

JB was that level of preparedness your SOP, Qantas SOP or all pilot's SOP?

That's how we (QF) did it. I can't speak for others, but I expect that there would be a range of preparedness.

 

[NM]

Any thoughts on this reported low-alttiude ejection by a Russian SU25 pilot in Ukraine? Seems very sort time from "bang" to being on the ground. The original post from the Discussion on Ukraine Situation 2020 thread with the video and comments reported by World of Aviation.

Discussion on Ukraine situation 2022

Unfortunate if true, could be fake or doctored, but if real it’s not totally unexpected, one despot helping another despot. https://tpyxa.net/2022/08/04/at-one-of-the-stations-in-the-rostov-region-chinese-military-equipment-was-spotted/

www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au

 

[jb747]

Any thoughts on this reported low-alttiude ejection by a Russian SU25 pilot in Ukraine? Seems very sort time from "bang" to being on the ground. The original post from the Discussion on Ukraine Situation 2020 thread with the video and comments reported by World of Aviation.

Discussion on Ukraine situation 2022

Unfortunate if true, could be fake or doctored, but if real it’s not totally unexpected, one despot helping another despot. https://tpyxa.net/2022/08/04/at-one-of-the-stations-in-the-rostov-region-chinese-military-equipment-was-spotted/

www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au

A first for the world of selfie videos. About 13 seconds from coughpit normal to lying in the grass. Amazing, but it's what these systems are designed for. The hit would seem to have been on the tail, and he's ejected using the lower handle immediately the aircraft pitches up. In some ways he's lucky that he was flying a relatively slow aircraft, as very high speed ejections from the same altitude would be much more problematic due to issues of opening shock (i.e. getting a chute at 500 knots or hitting the ground...choose one).

 

[The Flying Schwartz]

Any thoughts on this reported low-alttiude ejection by a Russian SU25 pilot in Ukraine? Seems very sort time from "bang" to being on the ground. The original post from the Discussion on Ukraine Situation 2020 thread with the video and comments reported by World of Aviation.

Discussion on Ukraine situation 2022

Unfortunate if true, could be fake or doctored, but if real it’s not totally unexpected, one despot helping another despot. https://tpyxa.net/2022/08/04/at-one-of-the-stations-in-the-rostov-region-chinese-military-equipment-was-spotted/

www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au

Yep, agree it's quite possible. We used to jump static line from C130s at 1,000' with a big slow canopy and that would take about 50 seconds or so. This guy looks less than 500' and has the added benefit of a rocket assisted exit, not just a jumpmaster's boot

 

[Yearlylonghaul]

I have noticed over the last few days that occasionally QF2 is flying almost directly east to over Tajikistan and then almost heading south to India and Singapore

QF2 followed same route when I was passenger on 10 August. There happened to be a medical emergency onboard on that flight at that time. I thought we may have been diverting towards a major city with medical facilities.

 

[jb747]

Yep, agree it's quite possible. We used to jump static line from C130s at 1,000' with a big slow canopy and that would take about 50 seconds or so. This guy looks less than 500' and has the added benefit of a rocket assisted exit, not just a jumpmaster's boot

It's more than possible. You can't associate a static line jump with an ejection. Seats vary in capability, but it would be a rare seat these days that couldn't handle ZERO altitude. Minimum altitude is a trade off against your sink rate. A seat capable of zero altitude with zero sink, might run out of capability at a few hundred feet if you have much in the way of downwards motion.

The seat that I'm most familiar with required zero altitude and zero speed. Basically you could eject whilst taxying around the airfield. Your peak altitude would be in the order of 180'. (As an aside, as you went faster, the peak got lower). And 1.5-2 seconds after initiating the sequence (by pulling either handle), you'd be under a full parachute. The chute was explosively blown open by a 'ballistic spreader'. So, that was a great positive to the system but also a huge negative, because being given a chute that quickly at high speed was something the human body is not built to withstand. The majority of current seats will not give you anything beyond a drogue chute until your deceleration is less than 4Gs. That's a way of indirectly measuring the speed, and of trying to put you into an area in which the opening shock will not be traumatic. The problem is that during a low ejection from a really fast aircraft, you might not get below 4G before ground impact.

Looking at the video, I'd put him at about 100' before he's hit. The pitch up actually gives him an up vector prior to ejection, and probably helped increase his time of flight. The complete sequence from initiation to full chute is about 4 seconds.

 

[D747]

From what I can see via maps and images, Taxiway Victor at YMML now extends from TW Charlie to TW Juliet. I could easily be wrong with all of my facts and terminology, but why would Victor not extend the full length of 16/34? Will it eventually?

 

[Duffa]

It's more than possible. You can't associate a static line jump with an ejection. Seats vary in capability, but it would be a rare seat these days that couldn't handle ZERO altitude. Minimum altitude is a trade off against your sink rate. A seat capable of zero altitude with zero sink, might run out of capability at a few hundred feet if you have much in the way of downwards motion.

The seat that I'm most familiar with required zero altitude and zero speed. Basically you could eject whilst taxying around the airfield. Your peak altitude would be in the order of 180'. (As an aside, as you went faster, the peak got lower). And 1.5-2 seconds after initiating the sequence (by pulling either handle), you'd be under a full parachute. The chute was explosively blown open by a 'ballistic spreader'. So, that was a great positive to the system but also a huge negative, because being given a chute that quickly at high speed was something the human body is not built to withstand. The majority of current seats will not give you anything beyond a drogue chute until your deceleration is less than 4Gs. That's a way of indirectly measuring the speed, and of trying to put you into an area in which the opening shock will not be traumatic. The problem is that during a low ejection from a really fast aircraft, you might not get below 4G before ground impact.

Looking at the video, I'd put him at about 100' before he's hit. The pitch up actually gives him an up vector prior to ejection, and probably helped increase his time of flight. The complete sequence from initiation to full chute is about 4 seconds.

40 years ago at the RAE in Farnborough, I was told that most pilots who bang out lose between 1-3cm in height - even the ones who don't have obvious crush fractures in their spinal vertebrae. It seems that everything just gets "squished" down a bit. Moreover, some of them regained a cm or so in the following months!
I'm sure there is more up to date research on the subject but that is what they knew then.

 

[jb747]

From what I can see via maps and images, Taxiway Victor at YMML now extends from TW Charlie to TW Juliet. I could easily be wrong with all of my facts and terminology, but why would Victor not extend the full length of 16/34? Will it eventually?

YMML did once have a good plan, but that's disappeared into various black holes.

Towards the south end of 34/16, you can see various taxiway stubs that were meant to lead on/off the runway, and probably on to the originally planned second east west runway which would have been between J and W. Taxiway Y shows two stubs, one of which would have gone to a 90º intersection with 16/34 whilst the other would have been a high speed exit from 16. That would have been useful, as G is a bit short for most heavies whilst J is a bit far for a quick operation.

Will V go further? I doubt it. It would be useful, but the management of the airports in Oz has very little to do with aviation.