Ask The Pilot

[flydoc]

Ignoring the flight numbers...the fog forecast for Launceston had it appearing around 8am, and then hanging around for much of the day.

Surprised that the forecast had the fog forming that “late” in the morning but it certainly explains the sequence of events (apologies re the incorrect flight number)

 

[747sp]

Last Friday (21st July) I was on a 737 QF 541 from Brisbane to Sydney and we only got to 24 thousand feet. The plane's previous flight was at 37k and the next flight was at about 28k. Would there be a reason or were just luck that ATC wanted us to get such such a close up view of the clouds as the sun set?

 

[jb747]

Last Friday (21st July) I was on a 737 QF 541 from Brisbane to Sydney and we only got to 24 thousand feet. The plane's previous flight was at 37k and the next flight was at about 28k. Would there be a reason or were just luck that ATC wanted us to get such such a close up view of the clouds as the sun set?

VH-VXR. The previous flight was Sydney to Brisbane, and it went high. Then reversing that flight back to Sydney (your flight), it went relatively low. So straight away the answer will be related to the winds. Northbound high, south low is a pretty common way to treat the monorail (which is what Brisbane-Sydney-Melbourne was called). 28k out of Sydney to Melbourne is still relatively low. The bottom of the controlled airspace was FL200, and I've done flights down at that sort of level to avoid some of the stronger winds.

 

[ksksks]

Yes, pretty much because of winds.

On Friday, the jetstream cut through Armidale/Coffs Harbour bringing 155-165kt winds from WSW for FL300 upwards. This translates to a 90+kt headwind on something like BNE-SYD at those levels. By comparison, the FL240 winds were much weaker at 250/47.

 

[Quickstatus]

Never seen this type of aircraft before
Any insights appreciated

 

[747sp]

Hi JB . There's were 2 articles about the same plane , vh oqi, flying QF1 and 2. For QF 1 I was wondering with the autopilot failure would the captain allocate different roles to normal and would someone be allocated the role to resolve the problem or would the pilots just fly the plane manually.
The plane also went to a lower altitude for separation issues but would the lower altitude make it easer to avoid issues such as stalling?
For QF 2 with the messages about using the full runway is the main aim of the crew to ensure everyone on the ground and in the air understands that the landing would be different to normal?

The link to article is The Aviation Herald

 

[JohnM]

Never seen this type of aircraft before
Any insights appreciated


View attachment 337679

Britten-Norman Trislander - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[jb747]

Never seen this type of aircraft before

You should consider yourself lucky.

 

[jb747]

There's were 2 articles about the same plane , vh oqi, flying QF1 and 2. For QF 1 I was wondering with the autopilot failure would the captain allocate different roles to normal and would someone be allocated the role to resolve the problem or would the pilots just fly the plane manually.

The autopilots don't just fail. That's a nice catch all phrase, but they've failed as a result of something else. My guess would be that the aircraft was operating under an MEL that allowed something to be u/s, and that subsequently a second similar item has failed. There goes the redundancy, and the likely result if it's anything to do with air data or side slip, AoA or probe heating (and others) would be that the fly by wire system would revert to a lower law. Whilst going all the way to direct is unlikely, reversion to alternate II would take away the autopilots. And what you're left with isn't a nice easy aircraft to fly. You'll have no roll trim at all, and an almost 100% chance that it will not be in trim in roll. Flying it takes all of your concentration, and can only be done in about 15 minute cycles. Normally you can let go of an aircraft when it's being manually flown, but not in this case. It is extremely tiring. It would be all hands on deck, with the pilot flying switching every 10-15 minutes and the others watching him like a hawk. You wouldn't even consider flying around just to dump some fuel.

I've had a failure like this, and we had to fly for 4 hours before we could land. We were all knackered.

You won't be able to resolve this. Any law change will be latched, and will need the engineers to reset it.

The plane also went to a lower altitude for separation issues but would the lower altitude make it easer to avoid issues such as stalling?

Stalling won't be an issue, but yes, lower is easier.

For QF 2 with the messages about using the full runway is the main aim of the crew to ensure everyone on the ground and in the air understands that the landing would be different to normal?

Really it's just ensuring that everyone is on the same page. You don't normally use anywhere near all of the runway, and ATC space following aircraft based on that. This is saying that we're going to be on the runway longer than usual. The mention of reverse thrust relates to London's noise requirements, as you're supposed to use minimum (generally just idle) reverse.

Sadly most of the commentary on AvHerald is from people who have little to no idea.

You CANNOT dump below 80 tonnes (roughly) remaining. So, after dumping as much as possible, that leaves you around 50 tonnes over MLW. But, MLW is not a limitation that you cannot break. As long as the aircraft is landed smoothly, it will do no damage whatsover. The MLW limits apply to somewhat arbitrary rates of descent. Airbus were more flexible in regard to this than Boeing.

 

[JohnM]

You should consider yourself lucky.

I've ridden in one Jersey-Guernsey-Jersey with Aurigny: Aurigny - Wikipedia and survived...

 

[Buzzard]

Britten-Norman Trislander - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not sure I'd want to fly on something called a try lander

 

[Quickstatus]

Of the aircraft carriers;
Which is Melbourne and Sydney?

 

[OZDUCK]

Of the aircraft carriers;
Which is Melbourne and Sydney?
View attachment 337879

Surely HMAS Sydney to the left - port - of HMAS Melbourne.

 

[SYD]

Surely HMAS Sydney to the left - port - of HMAS Melbourne.

Correct. HMAS Sydney never had the angled flight deck modification.

I can’t tell which Destroyer Escort is starboard of HMAS Supply (but it’s not Swan nor Torrens).

 

[jb747]

Image is before 1968.

From the top:
Sydney
Melbourne
Supply
Parramatta or Yarra

 

[Quickstatus]

Sydney
Melbourne

Which one was used for the jets

 

[SYD]

Which one was used for the jets

Melbourne! Sydney didn’t have a catapult or arrestor wires!

 

[jb747]

Melbourne! Sydney didn’t have a catapult or arrestor wires!

It had arrestor wires originally, as you can see in this Korean war image.

HMAS SYDNEY IN ACTION OFF KOREA. OCTOBER 1951 TO JANUARY 1952. WITH THE AUSTRALIAN AIRCRAFT CARRIER HMAS SYDNEY IN KOREA.

Mechanics service their aircraft on HMAS SYDNEY's flight deck as the ship steams to the operational area on the east coast of Korea. Fireflies of 817 Squadron are on the left and Sea Furies on the right.

www.iwm.org.uk

 

[SYD]

It had arrestor wires originally, as you can see in this Korean war image.

HMAS SYDNEY IN ACTION OFF KOREA. OCTOBER 1951 TO JANUARY 1952. WITH THE AUSTRALIAN AIRCRAFT CARRIER HMAS SYDNEY IN KOREA.

Mechanics service their aircraft on HMAS SYDNEY's flight deck as the ship steams to the operational area on the east coast of Korea. Fireflies of 817 Squadron are on the left and Sea Furies on the right.

www.iwm.org.uk

Yeah, but presumably removed during the conversion to sealift / troop carrier in the early ‘60s? Thereafter only operated the odd helo?

 

[luckypierre]

Not sure I'd want to fly on something called a try lander

Well we did fly on one some years ago from Dinard airport (Brittany) to Guernsey, operated by Air Aurigny. Interesting experience flying relatively low, we were sitting two rows behind the pilot, who spent some of his time reading the newspaper!