Ask The Pilot

[AviatorInsight]

I was walking down Collins St in Melbourne a few minutes ago and noticed a 737 rocketing through the sky above me. So unusual did the speed seem that I opened Flight Radar and saw that it was VA 1365 inbound from LST.

According to FR, the aircraft was at 270knots and 4,000ft, which appeared to be about 100 above the normal speed I notice.

The aircraft then missed the usual right turn towards MEL at Yarraville, tracking out towards Laverton North, in a sort of dog leg before tracking towards the airport.

My question for the pilots is what sort of reasons would result in an approach being so much faster than normal, and at what point should such an approach be abandoned?

Side note is that it’s extremely blustery in MEL today.

With the conditions in MEL earlier today they were using runway 34 only. The aircraft would have had a feeder fix time to meet at waypoint WAREN for the WAREN7A arrival. Given the short sector length it would be hard to lose a lot of time en-route. This explains the big dog leg towards Toora before making their way back.

The speed you're seeing on FR is ground speed not actual indicated airspeed. By the time they get to Vermont South at 7,500ft their ground speed is 200kts (consistent with the 40-50kts of northerly wind). As they turn out of the wind the ground speed will rise naturally.

The tracking looks fairly normal with the standard arrival until they get to Richmond. From here my guess is that they needed to lose more time for the sequence and so get vectored off the arrival. When being vectored by ATC we fly on heading (not track) so our actual track across the ground will be affected by wind. With a strong northerly this will have the tendency to push the aircraft further south past the West Gate Bridge rather than the usual tracking via the Bolte.

Another giveaway that they're then told to reduce to final approach speed for a little more room, is the consistent holding of around the 125kt ground speed mark. when they turn to intercept the final approach course.

Our stabilised approach criteria is -5 to +10kts below 1,000ft. If we are consistently outside of those tolerances then a go around must be executed.

 

[Peasant]

Thanks for that very interesting explanation @AviatorInsight

 

[Quickstatus]

So, are Air Asia aircraft equipped and pilots trained for Cat whatever autoland?

 

[jb747]

I found non-pilot officers within a squadron were treated pretty well by pilots of that same squadron.

I guess it's really the 'blunts' who are the problem. You know who you are!

 

[jb747]

I was walking down Collins St in Melbourne a few minutes ago and noticed a 737 rocketing through the sky above me. So unusual did the speed seem that I opened Flight Radar and saw that it was VA 1365 inbound from LST.

According to FR, the aircraft was at 270knots and 4,000ft, which appeared to be about 100 above the normal speed I notice.

Air speed or ground speed? 250 kias at 4,000' is nothing unusual. A 20 knot tailwind would give you 270 g/s, so again, nothing really note worthy.

The aircraft then missed the usual right turn towards MEL at Yarraville, tracking out towards Laverton North, in a sort of dog leg before tracking towards the airport.

I don't think you can read too much into this.

My question for the pilots is what sort of reasons would result in an approach being so much faster than normal, and at what point should such an approach be abandoned?

It's not that fast. You could probably be at about 280kias at 3,000' and 10 miles, and still land comfortably off the approach. You can also be at around 7,000' at the same distance, and if the speed is slow, also land. Energy management is a bit of a game.

So, are Air Asia aircraft equipped and pilots trained for Cat whatever autoland?

We don't have access to Air Asia's manuals, so we can't say for sure. I'd expect that their aircraft are at least Cat IIIa capable. Whilst i'm not a fan of what I've seen their pilots do, I'd expect that they are qualified to whatever the aircraft are.

 

[Rabs97]

People can make up their own minds. If given the choice of an A320 or a 737, I would prefer the A320.

I honestly wouldn’t care and the choice of either aircraft’s safety would never factor into a choice of flight. The difference in risk of you not getting home safely between each type is so low it totals 0.07 per million flights vs 0.09 per million, making the 737NG (-600 to -900) slightly safer than the A318-321 series.

Plane crash rates by model

Chart listing the rate of plane crashes involving passenger fatalities in fatal events per million flights for selected airliner models.

www.airsafe.com

Rostov comes to mind.

That didn’t have anything to do with a 737NG specific system. I was referring to your original point about the HUD and AIII approach safety specifically. At Rostov the nose was pitched down too far along with an excessive nose down trim input leading to an unrecoverable situation. Could’ve happened on any Boeing.

 

[jb747]

I honestly wouldn’t care and the choice of either aircraft’s safety would never factor into a choice of flight. The difference in risk of you not getting home safely between each type is so low it totals 0.07 per million flights vs 0.09 per million, making the 737NG (-600 to -900) slightly safer than the A318-321 series.

Reading through all of the events, and looking at the causes, and removing the bombs, bird strikes, and other non brand events is interesting reading. There’s a heavy preponderance of landing and go around events, though not enough detail to say how much this was affected by the AFCS, or it’s lack. There’s also a number of events that may not have happened if a decent ECAM/EICAS were fitted (and I think that’s one of the items that continues to be lacking under the grandfathering) But, the most relevant will really be the comparison between the Max and NEO, as they’re what airlines are buying now. I’m well aware that an individual flight has effectively zero risk, and that’s the basis most people use to fly on airlines that I don’t even like sharing the airspace with.

That didn’t have anything to do with a 737NG specific system. I was referring to your original point about the HUD and AIII approach safety specifically. At Rostov the nose was pitched down too far along with an excessive nose down trim input leading to an unrecoverable situation.

There was discussion after the event as to whether the pilot became confused with the pitch display on the HUD. What other reason is there not to have selected 20º or so degrees, and just held it. Whether UAs are fixed via the HUD or the PFD is certainly an item of interest. Beyond that, is the fact that if the approach had been in an aircraft capable of doing so on the autopilot(s), then so too would the go around. Basically a similar approach in a 767 (for instance) would have been automatic, and so would the go around. And it’s not as if the 767 is a new aircraft.

Could’ve happened on any Boeing.

That’s a terrible indictment in itself. It would not have happened in any aircraft with automated go around. Nor would it have done so with FBW. There really isn’t any excuse to not have that equipment in anything on the market now. Just because something was adequate, or could be worked around, in the past, does not mean it’s reasonable to keep manufacturing it into the future.

 

[Flashback]

The root cause analysis has been made public for the recent UK ATC issues. What are the chances, eh?

Duplicate waypoint name caused UK air traffic outage

One in 15 million chance.

www.itnews.com.au

 

[jb747]

The root cause analysis has been made public for the recent UK ATC issues. What are the chances, eh?

Duplicate waypoint name caused UK air traffic outage

One in 15 million chance.

www.itnews.com.au

The odds aren’t 15 million to one. It’s just that they’ve never had it happen after 15 million plans. I expect the odds are 100% if you use any two repeated names. And it’s not as if they’re uncommon. There’s a limit to how many 5 letter words you can generate, that are pronounceable and not confusing in their own right. Sounds like some fairly poor software. As the waypoints were over 4,000 miles apart, the system would have had dozens of other waypoints along the way, that would have allowed it to build the correct track.

 

[justinbrett]

The odds aren’t 15 million to one. It’s just that they’ve never had it happen after 15 million plans. I expect the odds are 100% if you use any two repeated names. And it’s not as if they’re uncommon. There’s a limit to how many 5 letter words you can generate, that are pronounceable and not confusing in their own right. Sounds like some fairly poor software. As the waypoints were over 4,000 miles apart, the system would have had dozens of other waypoints along the way, that would have allowed it to build the correct track.

There's a NOBAR just east of SYD, and a NOBAR just east of AKL. Both on major air routes.

Then of course you have the two/three letter navaids that are repeated even more frequently. Seems like budget software.

 

[ashikajp]

Query to the captain of the board
How much does it cost to become the dream pilot from starting your career to it

 

[ashikajp]

I guess it's really the 'blunts' who are the problem. You know who you are!

i just wanted to know if it really the same things i think i would get after becoming the pilot i wanted to be??
like traveling all around the world and experiencing different cultures n environments etc

 

[jb747]

Query to the captain of the board
How much does it cost to become the dream pilot from starting your career to it

It cost me nothing, in dollar terms anyway. I did my pilot training in the military. That's training that you can't buy, and it costs millions of dollars.

For those who are paying their own way, you'd have to expect to spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars. But, you then have to add a large risk factor to that, as very few people who actually start pilot training will ever get to the left hand seat of a large jet. They'll fall by the wayside for many reasons, many of which they have no control over.

i just wanted to know if it really the same things i think i would get after becoming the pilot i wanted to be??
like traveling all around the world and experiencing different cultures n environments etc

If you want to do that, then you're better off just being a tourist. As a working pilot, you don't get long slips, and you're jetlagged 100% of the time. Basically you'll go to lots of places, but see very little of them.

 

[ashikajp]

It cost me nothing, in dollar terms anyway. I did my pilot training in the military. That's training that you can't buy, and it costs millions of dollars.

For those who are paying their own way, you'd have to expect to spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars. But, you then have to add a large risk factor to that, as very few people who actually start pilot training will ever get to the left hand seat of a large jet. They'll fall by the wayside for many reasons, many of which they have no control over.

If you want to do that, then you're better off just being a tourist. As a working pilot, you don't get long slips, and you're jetlagged 100% of the time. Basically you'll go to lots of places, but see very little of them.

thank you for your reply...i just want to get started with my pilot training but i dont n
know how where...i though australia must be it.
im calculating my journey to it.

 

[Saab34]

Why do the spoilers remain in the up position on crash landings etc? Some go down but some stay half up?

This Russian A320 below which conducted a field landing today.

 

[jb747]

Why do the spoilers remain in the up position on crash landings etc? Some go down but some stay half up?

This Russian A320 below which conducted a field landing today.

The aircraft concerned in this tale had hydraulic issues to start with, so the end state of the spoilers isn't necessarily ideal anyway. Generally, actuation of an overwing exit will cause the inboard spoilers to retract, if they have any power available. There's no need for the outboards to come down, and there may not be enough hydraulic power left to move them all. So, just move the ones that matter.

The spoilers aren't simple systems. There are multiple panels, which can extend by varying amounts depending upon the stage of flight. The same panels can be used as ground spoilers, speedbrakes, or for roll control. They also sequence, with not all rising at exactly the same rate, which is an attempt to control any pitch changes they may induce.

And for this accident...the FMCS fuel predictions are not valid in abnormal configurations....

 

[mjt57]

JB, this bring back memories of your early aviating days???


It’s a replica of the Boeing flying boats pre-WW2 era at the Foynes Flying Boat Museum.

On another note, flying into LHR last week on QF2 watching the approach on the A380 tail cam, cloud/fog from around 15,000ft all the way in. Broke through it to see the runway about 10 secs from crossing the threshold with the 380 smack bang dead centre.

Totally impressed.

Copped a fair bit of turbulence, mostly over Thailand. Surprised that the big A380 could be so affected by it.

 

[jb747]

JB, this bring back memories of your early aviating days???

Heck, I’m 68. Not 108!

On another note, flying into LHR last week on QF2 watching the approach on the A380 tail cam, cloud/fog from around 15,000ft all the way in. Broke through it to see the runway about 10 secs from crossing the threshold with the 380 smack bang dead centre.

A380 autolands are very impressive. I was always amazed at how well it handled quite strong crosswinds, with the flare, and then gentle rudder input to straighten it up, being very pilot like.

Copped a fair bit of turbulence, mostly over Thailand. Surprised that the big A380 could be so affected by it.

Turbulence response is largely a function of the wing loading. The more weight carried per square foot of wing area, the less the aircraft will respond to any turbulence. The A380 is very heavy, but the wing area is enormous. The loading is a lot less than (say) the 747 (area 845m vs 510m). So, on that basis the 380 should actually be worse in turbulence than the 747. But, the wing is also extremely flexible, and acts as huge shock absorber. Some of the flight controls (in particular the outer ailerons) also have turbulence reduction functions, which leads to the odd sight of the panels deflecting in opposite directions.

 

[Maca44]

There's a NOBAR just east of SYD, and a NOBAR just east of AKL. Both on major air routes.

Then of course you have the two/three letter navaids that are repeated even more frequently. Seems like budget software.

Is one of those two/three letter navaids "WTF"

 

[ayebee]

I just sit down the back, but this video is amazing to give a glimpse of what military pilots experience.
Some of those cranes and building seem very close and I am wondering if this Brisbane show is about the closest these displays anywhere get to "obstacles"?