Ask The Pilot

[mjt57]

Question (hopefully OK to ask here) re the ANZ diversion back to UnZud the other day. It was scheduled to fly to JFK if I read the news article correctly, but returned to NZ when JFK closed or reduced flights into it.
Just wondering, if JFK was closed to it why couldn't it divert to another airport, say, La Guardia or Newark if they can take 787s? Obviously there was a reason to return to NZ but that would have been super expensive, fuel, rebooking pax, etc..

 

[flyingfan]

Just wondering, if JFK was closed to it why couldn't it divert to another airport, say, La Guardia or Newark if they can take 787s? Obviously there was a reason to return to NZ but that would have been super expensive, fuel, rebooking pax, etc..

I did read the airline saying returning to origin was preferable because otherwise the aircraft would have been even more out of position and disrupted many more passengers for upcoming flights. (Passing on reporting and I'm not a pilot)

 

[jb747]

Question (hopefully OK to ask here) re the ANZ diversion back to UnZud the other day. It was scheduled to fly to JFK if I read the news article correctly, but returned to NZ when JFK closed or reduced flights into it.
Just wondering, if JFK was closed to it why couldn't it divert to another airport, say, La Guardia or Newark if they can take 787s? Obviously there was a reason to return to NZ but that would have been super expensive, fuel, rebooking pax, etc..

There are innumerable airports that they could have gone to. The decision makes no sense to me.

Anyway, it's discussed in this thread:

Air NZ's 16 Hour Flight to No Where

This is quite the story. Imagine sitting in Y for 16 hours only to land back at your point of departure! During Air NZ's flight from AKL to JFK, JFK closed mid-flight due to a fire and the pilots were directed by Air NZ management to fly back to AKL. The pilots tried to suggest diverting to...

www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au

I did read the airline saying returning to origin was preferable because otherwise the aircraft would have been even more out of position and disrupted many more passengers for upcoming flights. (Passing on reporting and I'm not a pilot)

Well, if it had landed anywhere in the USA it would have been at most 4 hours from where it was supposed to be. Taking it back to NZ means it's on the other side of the world. I have no doubt that this was purely an economic decision, with zero regard to inconvenience.

 

[Hvr]

I have no doubt that this was purely an economic decision, with zero regard to inconvenience.

Could the Captain have declined the company"s preference to return to NZ and continued on to the USA?

 

[jb747]

Could the Captain have declined the company"s preference to return to NZ and continued on to the USA?

If he could come up with any sort of ‘safety‘ reason, then yes. Otherwise it’s really their train set. I’d want confirmation from Chief Pilot/Duty Captain level though, which is easy enough to get in these days of satcom. I’ve certainly heard some pretty dud ‘decisions’ from ops control, which were easy enough to dismiss, as they simply were not thought through. This isn’t something I agree with, but it doesn’t seem unsafe.

 

[Quickstatus]

how close were they to the point of no return to AKL?

 

[jb747]

how close were they to the point of no return to AKL?

Don’t know, but obviously not close enough. That would have easily provided a reason not to go back. They probably have substantial holding fuel for JFK, so that would help provide a buffer for any return. And their flight planning people could simply have run a plan from any position on the track, with actual fuel at that point, and the real weather. That would then have been uplinked as a load to the FMC.

 

[Quickstatus]

flight planning people could simply have run a plan

Sounds like it's one of those situation where the "sorry can't hear the radio inexplicably stopped working" reason does not cut mustard.

How much duty hours did they still have when the wheel chocks were applied back in AKL.

I wonder that the paxing crew was for?

 

[jb747]

Sounds like it's one of those situation where the "sorry can't hear the radio inexplicably stopped working" reason does not cut mustard.

That only ever cut the mustard in Hollywood. There are many, reliable, means of communication.

How much duty hours did they still have when the wheel chocks were applied back in AKL.

Have a look at FR24. The flight time will be there. Add 90 minutes to it to get the duty period. Subtract the answer from 20 hours.

I wonder that the paxing crew was for?

The next flight that won't be going 'cos they don't have a crew?

 

[Saab34]

Gents, what is the hottest brake temps you have recorded on your said jets, and what was the reason for such heavy braking in such example?

 

[AviatorInsight]

Gents, what is the hottest brake temps you have recorded on your said jets, and what was the reason for such heavy braking in such example?

No idea. Most of the VA 737s don’t have that feature.

The only ones that we can check are the ex Silk Air birds and even then we don’t have that page up at all. Having said that I personally check it before we turn onto the bay.

 

[Saab34]

Ok thanks sounds like an Airbus thingy then

 

[jb747]

Ok thanks sounds like an Airbus thingy then

No, the 767 and 747 both had brake temperature indications, but it wasn't presented as an actual temperature, just a number from 0 to 9.

Anything above 5 was considered hot. I don't recall seeing them high very often, though it wasn't uncommon for one or two of them to be much hotter than the others. That could be from a 'heavy' foot, mostly from landing in a crosswind, or from an extended taxi, especially in the earlier 767s (with steel, rather than carbon, brakes). Or a dragging brake, in which case the engineers would generally lock it out.

The A380 gave actual temperatures. Above 500º was hot, though anything above 300º brought up a warning, and we'd leave the park brake off after shutdown. 300º was the max for take off (and the brakes would rise by 50º or so taxying) so on turnarounds in hot places the engineers would put an a/c duct onto the wheels. That was very effective at bringing the temps down. Most common place (and cause) for hot brakes was Dubai, where the controllers needed you to vacate the runway at what was a very early turn off, generally 'cos there was another aircraft in fairly close trail. Carbon brakes were not overly affected by heavy braking, they generally don't like lots of small applications, but don't care about one or two big ones.

 

[Quickstatus]

300º was the max for take off

What's the reason?
I can only think of Risk of fire?

Is there a maximum temp beyond which landing gear should not be stowed

 

[Quickstatus]

What would need to change re flight crew practices to accomodate a SYD-LHR nonstop which possibly would take over 20hrs including preflight time

 

[SYD]

What would need to change re flight crew practices to accomodate a SYD-LHR nonstop which possibly would take over 20hrs including preflight time

I was going to say something that might have been interpreted as coughy or sexist (although not intended) but pulling the thread of that thought bubble - how much water will be on board for everyone trying to “freshen up” not to run the well dry?

 

[jb747]

What's the reason?
I can only think of Risk of fire?

That's the obvious one....

Is there a maximum temp beyond which landing gear should not be stowed

No, just the take off max (which is 290º, not the 300º I mentioned). The temperature is not checked prior to retraction, and the brakes hot warning is inhibited for 15 minutes after take off, which implies that AB are happy enough for it to be hot for a short period.

 

[jb747]

What would need to change re flight crew practices to accomodate a SYD-LHR nonstop which possibly would take over 20hrs including preflight time

I've done a number of trips that have, for various reasons, stretched out towards 20 hours. You need actual sleep for this to be even slightly safe, and that is hard to come by on an aircraft, when the roster has you called back to the coughpit periodically. Rostering people off for longer periods only works if the people being left on duty are awake, and that was always a constraint.

Personally, I won't be paxing on any of these flights.

 

[jb747]

How much water will be on board for everyone trying to “freshen up” not to run the well dry?

Using the 380 system as an example, there was about .3 litres, per person per hour within the potable system (max 2,000 kg). So, that would mean roughly 1,500 liters carried (250 people on a 20 hour sector).

 

[SYD]

Using the 380 system as an example, there was about .3 litres, per person per hour within the potable system (max 2,000 kg). So, that would mean roughly 1,500 liters carried (250 people on a 20 hour sector).

A BA FA friend said they’d pretty much give themselves a full body wash down in the loo when they could! That was before anything vaguely ULH.

Apart from an EK shower, I can’t say I’ve ever left the loo floor flooded but have “freshened up” on multiple flights. I certainly pays to have bought deodorant in the HL!