Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

So what happens if you decide to continue the float and land say beyond an acceptable point? Do you get an email from the training department or something? Warning letter from HR?

QAR data wasn't generally identifiable, so, unless it was so spectacular that it was worth their while to chase it down....nothing. Nobody would care about a letter from HR. Tea and bikkies with the fleet manager, or deputy chief pilot, on the other hand....

The risk of floating is not that you'll run off the other end of the runway. Of course that issue exists in some cases, but the real problem is that prolonged floats lead to increasing pitch attitudes, and are eventually the cause of many (perhaps most) tail scrapes. Just another reason why the super smooth landings that passengers (and cabin crew) think are so good, can actually be a negative outcome from the pilots' perspective. I cared far more about where I landed, than how smooth it was.

 

[Saab34]

Thanks JB.

What the hierarchy order?
Fleet Manager -> Deputy CP -> CP?

I assume a CP chat would involve something unsafe or an accident.

 

[jb747]

Fleet manager was my boss. DCP was his. CP was his. And then it became layers of suits.

 

[Bjet]

What does Fleet manager do?

 

[jb747]

I think I answered that question many pages ago. But, whatever any of the management pilots did constitutes one of the mysteries of aviation.

 

[por930]

Would this approximate the exterior light schedule for commercial aircraft, for example:
Electrical power to a/c = Navigation lights
Start engines = Beacon lights
After pushback - runway turn off lights where needed, maybe Logo lights?
On active runway = Landing lights, Strobes
In the air, Strobes remain on?, Landing lights off approx. 10,000feet
Descending, at 10,000 feet, the reverse of above?
When the gear is down, is this when you would activate the runway turnoff lights?

 

[AviatorInsight]

Would this approximate the exterior light schedule for commercial aircraft, for example:
Electrical power to a/c = Navigation lights
Start engines = Beacon lights
After pushback - runway turn off lights where needed, maybe Logo lights?
On active runway = Landing lights, Strobes
In the air, Strobes remain on?, Landing lights off approx. 10,000feet
Descending, at 10,000 feet, the reverse of above?
When the gear is down, is this when you would activate the runway turnoff lights?

And if you’re part of the Qantas group then it’s ALL external lights on including the wing inspection lights during the day and night. Something I’ve never understood. (Tongue in cheek).

Logo lights come on during night ops only and when power to the aircraft is available and will go off at 10,000ft.

There is no hard and fast rule with the lights apart from nav at night time.

We can actually depart without beacons but must use strobes and vice versa. The logo light can be unserviceable completely and some of the taxi lights serve better as birthday candles.

 

[por930]

Do you use Beacons and or Strobes for the entire flight, regardless of day or night? The A320 has a Auto function for strobes. If in the Auto position, while weight is on the main undercarriage, the strobes were off, and upon departure, the strobes automatically switched on until the a/c landed again. Maybe the auto function is more a failsafe, that the strobes are mostly off while on the ground and on in the air. I guess though, you could either not use Auto and simply select on/off.

I had always thought Strobes were always used while on a active runway, and in the air.

 

[Saab34]

Are not strobes turned on when entering a runway? I seem to see them turned on when crossing, entering and rolling/landing.

 

[jb747]

Would this approximate the exterior light schedule for commercial aircraft, for example:
Electrical power to a/c = Navigation lights
Start engines = Beacon lights
After pushback - runway turn off lights where needed, maybe Logo lights?
On active runway = Landing lights, Strobes
In the air, Strobes remain on?, Landing lights off approx. 10,000feet
Descending, at 10,000 feet, the reverse of above?
When the gear is down, is this when you would activate the runway turnoff lights?

A380
coughpit prep (i.e. when you first arrive in the coughpit)
Strobe - auto
Beacon - off
Logo - auto (on below 10,000')
All others a/r, which basically means all off except nav lights

When you have a clearance to start or to push back
Beacon - on

When ready to taxi
Nose lights - taxi
Runway turn off/camera/wing lights - on (the turn off lights are often left off, as they are very annoying to others)

Before entering the runway (or crossing any active)
Strobe - on

When you receive the take off clearance
Landing lights - on
Nose lights - take off

Nose lights go out at gear retraction

At 10,000' (up and down) turn the landing and wing lights on/off

Landing lights are really annoying in cloud, so you can turn them off if you want. They don't really help with the landing, so are generally also off in low vis ops.

 

[jb747]

This relates to another thread that has since been locked.

Within QF (and perhaps others) the term tech crew is used to describe pilots. I guess it really harks back to the days when the coughpit contained pilots, flight engineers, navigators, radio operators, and who knows what else. It was relevant until the last FE hung up his hat, which was only about 15 years ago.

Pilots never use the term, and if anything, it's now a slightly disparaging term mostly used by cabin crew.

 

[mjt57]

Pilots never use the term, and if anything, it's now a slightly disparaging term mostly used by cabin crew.

Waiting at the gate at LAX to board QF94 to MEL the other week, the presumably ground staff and FAs talking to each other mentioned "tech crew". So, yeah, for some sections of the industry it's still a thing, it seems.

 

[por930]

I just saw that the crew of an Emirates A380 while approaching Nice with the selected configuration, ‘CONF 1’, heard an unusual noise and felt a slight vibration. After landing, it was noticed the the upper surface of the second slat on the starboard wing was found to be “badly damaged”. Do you think it is just normal wear, or have they had an accident or bird strike at some time?

 

[jb747]

I just saw that the crew of an Emirates A380 while approaching Nice with the selected configuration, ‘CONF 1’, heard an unusual noise and felt a slight vibration. After landing, it was noticed the the upper surface of the second slat on the starboard wing was found to be “badly damaged”. Do you think it is just normal wear, or have they had an accident or bird strike at some time?

Config 1 is just slats, initially. The system automatically transitions to 1+F as the speed drops, and extends some trailing edge flap. There's no scale in the image on avherald, but those panels are quite large, so I'd put the damaged section as being a couple of metres long. The comments re drones are just gibberish (as usual). In terms of safety of the aircraft, the entire panel could fall off, and it would have pretty much zero effect. There isn't enough information to even have a guess at the why.

 

[justinbrett]

Waiting at the gate at LAX to board QF94 to MEL the other week, the presumably ground staff and FAs talking to each other mentioned "tech crew". So, yeah, for some sections of the industry it's still a thing, it seems.

In Air Force it's "aircrew", or just "crew". That's anyone who wears a flying suit and includes loadmasters / crew attendants all the way up to pilots.

Tech / techo in my circles always meant maintenance (but specifically the non-comissioned kind, as the officers were ENGOs - or their role specific names like AMO, ARMO, FLAMO, AVMO).

It's possible the Air Mobility squadrons had terms more similar to airlines, but certainly not the fighter world.

 

[straitman]

In Air Force it's "aircrew", or just "crew". That's anyone who wears a flying suit and includes loadmasters / crew attendants all the way up to pilots.

Tech / techo in my circles always meant maintenance (but specifically the non-comissioned kind, as the officers were ENGOs - or their role specific names like AMO, ARMO, FLAMO, AVMO).

It's possible the Air Mobility squadrons had terms more similar to airlines, but certainly not the fighter world.

The terms you have used are the same that I am familiar with no variations between the transport world and the knuckleheads.

 

[jb747]

So, why do knucks hang around in threes?


One can read. Another can write. And the third likes to hand around with intellectuals.

 

[straitman]

So, why do knucks hang around in threes?


One can read. Another can write. And the third likes to hand around with intellectuals.

… says a former knuck.

Which one were/are you JB?

 

[jb747]

… says a former knuck.

Which one were/are you JB?

I was also a navigator, so the answer is obvious.

 

[justinbrett]

I was also a navigator, so the answer is obvious.

The transition from Nav to ACO was definitely interesting. Mostly because people who flew in aircraft (navs) suddenly became the same category as people who'd never set foot in one on duty (Air Defence Officers).

Only made worse when CO 3CRU directed all of his officers to wear flying suits to work so they would "be taken seriously by ACG". I can assure you it had the opposite effect.