Ask The Pilot

[Mozza]

Most likely something to do with braking. On aircraft with many sets of wheels, you can actually have a brake or two locked out, in which case there is no braking at all to that wheel. The gear has to be left down for a couple of minutes after take off to allow the wheel to run down before being retracted.

Normally though, some braking is applied automatically during the retraction sequence to stop the wheel spinning. The nose gear may retract against a snubber stop it rotating. Any MEL that affects any of this may result in needing to leave the gear hanging in the breeze for a while.

Thanks JB

 

[jb747]

Ah, you just answered a question I was going ask a few days ago. Flying AA B737 ORD-BOS during climb there was a distinct hydraulic sound, vibration and noticeable drop in airspeed. As we started to look around the Captain made a quick announcement about the break temperature and the need to cool off (or something along those lines). Apparently they’d lowered the nose gear but didn’t sound the same as coming into land. A good few minutes before it was retracted and throttle up.

You can't just lower the nose gear. It's all or nothing. And there are no brakes on the nose anyway.

What speed would they have to throttle back to with the wheels down ?

They wouldn't throttle back, just pitch to maintain a reasonable speed. Landing gear is extremely noisy if you get too fast, so for me, I considered 200 knots with it extended to be more than enough.

Landing gear on the 737 can be extended at any speed but can only be retracted once below 230kts.

According the the internet (source of all knowledge) it's 320 extended, but 270 for the extension itself.

Just to add a bit more context. The after take off scan requires the pilot monitoring to move the gear lever from the UP position to the OFF position. It has happened that it has been inadvertently moved from UP and moved past the OFF detent to DOWN.

What holds the gear up on the 737 once the handle is in OFF. On the 767, it just rested on the doors.

 

[AviatorInsight]

What holds the gear up on the 737 once the handle is in OFF. On the 767, it just rested on the doors.

Mechanical uplocks hold the gear in place and the hydraulic fluid returns to the reservoir.

 

[Saab34]

I noted many 737s from both major operators ended up at Avalon this afternoon due to the windshear challenges at Tullamarine over a small period. Some went back to Sydney, but many went down to Avalon after only doing one or two holds, Virgin didn’t even hold just went in.

Can I assume that company fuel polices these days are a bit tighter vs what many think? I was quite surprised how little they held, before citing fuel concerns . One Jetstar A320 did two holds and advised they would be on minimal fuel shortly.

Avalon is obviously not ideal, for both QF and
VA who have been stuck on the ground for 3 hours awaiting a new slot. AV, any reason why would pick Avalon vs say Sydney or Adelaide?

 

[kookaburra75]

As one of those sitting at Avalon on the QF flight from Cairns, the info we're getting is there is a queue to top up. They tried an approach into Tullamarine, but it was seriously choppy and decided not to. We held for at least 30 minutes before diverting to Avalon. There has been a wait to get to the front of the queue for fuel - about 3 hours. Everyone is as cheery as they can be. Hopefully we get to Tullamarine in three next hour. I suspect we won't be getting to our final destination of Canberra, but MrsK has resigned herself to another day of holidays in Melbourne tonight -much more preferably than Sydney or Adelaide.

 

[Saab34]

As one of those sitting at Avalon on the QF flight from Cairns, the info we're getting is there is a queue to top up. They tried an approach into Tullamarine, but it was seriously choppy and decided not to. We held for at least 30 minutes before diverting to Avalon. There has been a wait to get to the front of the queue for fuel - about 3 hours. Everyone is as cheery as they can be. Hopefully we get to Tullamarine in three next hour. I suspect we won't be getting to our final destination of Canberra, but MrsK has resigned herself to another day of holidays in Melbourne tonight -much more preferably than Sydney or Adelaide. a quick

It looks like the QF flight from NZ got fuel and left, Virgin next to refuel I assuming now, and I recall hearing one QF 737 had an issue and requested for a parking bay. So hopefully you’re next for gas!

The VA 737 behind you on the taxiway will be in for a long night.

Seems to be an hour job to refuel.

 

[kookaburra75]

It looks like the QF flight from NZ got fuel and left, Virgin next to refuel I assuming now, and I recall hearing one QF 737 had an issue and requested for a parking bay. So hopefully you’re next for gas!

The VA 737 behind you on the taxiway will be in for a long night.

Seems to be an hour job to refuel.

Oh well. We certainly don't have any issues, so hopefully next to fuel up, although when they shut down the engines it could get a bit warm.

 

[kookaburra75]

We're off! They kept the APU running, so things are ok on board.

We can see a QF 737 over at a hangar, but I don't know what the issue is.

At least I get to add a AVV-MEL leg into my flight diary. MrsK, not so impressed.

 

[Saab34]

Your QF703 just called approach they don’t have a flight plan in, approach is asking for 20 mins notice for departure from Avalon.

Still delays going to Melbourne at the moment.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Virgin didn’t even hold just went in.

Can I assume that company fuel polices these days are a bit tighter vs what many think? I was quite surprised how little they held, before citing fuel concerns . Any reason why would pick Avalon vs say Sydney or Adelaide?

Normal policy is to arrive with no less than 1hr's worth of fuel. That's 30mins above the minimum fuel reserves.

Of course, the Capt has the ultimate say in the amount of fuel carried. This has always been a touchy situation for some commanders who want to carry more than the company, but with only 30mins holding or a go-around, and you'll then be pulling out the low-fuel checklist.

 

[Saab34]

Do you get in trouble from Management if you always decide to ‘take more’ as a personal preference vs company policy?

 

[jb747]

Your QF703 just called approach they don’t have a flight plan in, approach is asking for 20 mins notice for departure from Avalon.

Still delays going to Melbourne at the moment.

Acccording to the actual flight plan, it was filed 24 minutes before the planned departure.

 

[jb747]

I noted many 737s from both major operators ended up at Avalon this afternoon due to the windshear challenges at Tullamarine over a small period. Some went back to Sydney, but many went down to Avalon after only doing one or two holds, Virgin didn’t even hold just went in.

Looking at FR24 and the weather for the period, it's nothing horrific. A gusty southerly (but trivia compared to what Melbourne can offer). Notably, ATC are using 09 for arrivals, which would have had a tail wind component. I don't know why they'd be using that, but it may have been part of the issue. The forecasts didn't contain anything to make me twitch.

Can I assume that company fuel polices these days are a bit tighter vs what many think? I was quite surprised how little they held, before citing fuel concerns . One Jetstar A320 did two holds and advised they would be on minimal fuel shortly.

Hilarious. The fuel policies have always been dramatically tighter than the public think. Aircraft DO NOT normally have any sort of alternate fuel, unless forced by the weather forecast. Even then, if the alternate fuel requirement is more than is required for mandated holding, then all they'll have is the holding.

Avalon is obviously not ideal, for both QF and VA who have been stuck on the ground for 3 hours awaiting a new slot. AV, any reason why would pick Avalon vs say Sydney or Adelaide?

Because it's closer. These aircraft would not have had anywhere near enough fuel to go anywhere else. In fact, if Avalon hadn't been available, you'd have seen some landings (at Melbourne) irrespective of ATC or fuel legalities.

Normal policy is to arrive with no less than 1hr's worth of fuel. That's 30mins above the minimum fuel reserves.

Interesting. How is that worded in the fuel policy?

Legally all they'd require is the 30 minutes mandatory minimum, 10% of the fuel from whatever arbitrary point they've decided is their 'decision' point, and any NOTAM/weather holding. That would come out to near an hour to dry tanks at Melbourne yesterday, but 60 minutes wasn't the actual aim.

Of course, the Capt has the ultimate say in the amount of fuel carried. This has always been a touchy situation for some commanders who want to carry more than the company, but with only 30mins holding or a go-around, and you'll then be pulling out the low-fuel checklist.

Fuel makes most problems go away.

Do you get in trouble from Management if you always decide to ‘take more’ as a personal preference vs company policy?

Management would probably love to be able to do something. But, I know many a Captain who would immediately forward any such correspondence to CASA (and these days probably beyond). It would be very dangerous ground to tread. On the other hand, they do attempt a lot of low level pushing in the direction of min fuel.

I was always delighted, any time I was sitting in the holding pattern at Dubai when I heard one of our min fuel people decide that they couldn't hold and would have to divert to somewhere or other. By the time they could divert, refuel, get back into the traffic sequence, and actually fly to Dubai, we'd have landed, gone to the bar, become confused, and gone to bed. And more importantly, our aircraft and passengers would be well into their next sector.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Do you get in trouble from Management if you always decide to ‘take more’ as a personal preference vs company policy?

Nope. At a previous airline you would have been called into the office to explain why you would take "more than others". Then they put a Westwind into the drink for not having an alternate.

In the VB days there were fuel meetings showing where Captains sat and had a board of who took the least amount of fuel as the winner. This has since been long gone, especially since the 'Mildura' incident.

Any reason why would pick Avalon vs say Sydney or Adelaide?

Because Avalon is closer and they wouldn't carry the fuel to Sydney or Adelaide on a normal day. However, Canberra, Mildura, and LST are all closer than Sydney and Adelaide and all good options.

Interesting. How is that worded in the fuel policy?

Legally all they'd require is the 30 minutes mandatory minimum, 10% of the fuel from whatever arbitrary point they've decided is their 'decision' point, and any NOTAM/weather holding. That would come out to near an hour to dry tanks at Melbourne yesterday, but 60 minutes wasn't the actual aim.

"All Virgin Australia flights will be planned with a minimum FOD (fuel over destination) equivalent to 60mins holding fuel..."

CASR Part 91 changed in 2021 and when a destination alternate is not planned, 15mins holding fuel must be carried instead. This also includes post dispatch fuel requirements and treated the same way as alternate fuel.

Fuel makes most problems go away.

I completely agree and sometimes get ridiculed for my "excessive" fuel figure. I will always carry an alternate regardless of what the forecasts say. Of course, this is just my own fuel planning, and most skippers will take less.

By “excessive”, it will usually be about 1 tonne more than the flight plan, equal to an additional 30 mins.

 

[Saab34]

I completely agree and sometimes get ridiculed for my "excessive" fuel figure.

Why? It’s not the Pilots money. Where does the ‘least is best’ mentality come from?

Gents do you find that it’s different generations of captains have different opinions?

 

[jb747]

"All Virgin Australia flights will be planned with a minimum FOD (fuel over destination) equivalent to 60mins holding fuel..."

Fairly definite. Do they also specify a holding altitude?

CASR Part 91 changed in 2021 and when a destination alternate is not planned, 15mins holding fuel must be carried instead. This also includes post dispatch fuel requirements and treated the same way as alternate fuel.

How does this interact with the ATC 'advisory' holding fuel that places like Melbourne applied. In addition to, or instead of, or just a minimum of? Mind you, I consider 15 minutes to be pretty useless. Just enough to realise you should have had more.

By “excessive”, it will usually be about 1 tonne more than the flight plan, equal to an additional 30 mins.

My numbers tended to be a bit larger. I recall offloading about 8 tonnes of cargo on a route check. Checker almost had heart failure. As it turned out, I needed every ounce.

 

[jb747]

In the VB days there were fuel meetings showing where Captains sat and had a board of who took the least amount of fuel as the winner. This has since been long gone, especially since the 'Mildura' incident.

As far as I know, that concept is still very much alive at QF. Rather high tech now, as it's part of an app on each person's iPad. You have an exact position for your own fuel ordering, and then fuel usage for each part of a flight. The winners always took no extra. I was very much a loser on this scale. But, I did put some balance back into things. After working out what I wanted, for my own personal fuel policy, I'd then find out how much the bloke who was third from the top took, and I'd then add the difference between what he took, and what I was going take, as well. Basically, I transferred fuel from his aircraft to mine. I slept easily.

 

[Saab34]

Because Avalon is closer and they wouldn't carry the fuel to Sydney or Adelaide on a normal day. However, Canberra, Mildura, and LST are all closer than Sydney and Adelaide and all good options.

Thanks for that. I am quite shocked at how little fuel is carried. I just assumed a SYD-MEL would be able to say conduct a missed approach, one or two holds, and the ability to return to Sydney. Clearly not.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Thanks for that. I am quite shocked at how little fuel is carried. I just assumed a SYD-MEL would be able to say conduct a missed approach, one or two holds, and the ability to return to Sydney. Clearly not.

An alternate is not required for every flight. The ability is there (i.e, there is space if you want to carry it). If weather conditions require an alternate, then Sydney or Adelaide will definitely be carried.

Why? It’s not the Pilots money. Where does the ‘least is best’ mentality come from?

Gents do you find that it’s different generations of captains have different opinions?

Correct, it's not our money. But in my experience, it'll usually come from the top with check and trainers towing the company fuel policy spruiking that fuel is a heavy cost to an airline (duh?), especially when there's a penalty to obviously carry that fuel that we want.

If you can justify it (which is really not hard to do in my opinion), then the training department tend to leave you alone. It's when you start adding fuel "just coz" or "for mum and the kids", that they then probe into your decision-making.

My view is that an airline employs me to use my license. How I wish to protect that under the current rules and regulations is my prerogative.

Fairly definite. Do they also specify a holding altitude?

How does this interact with the ATC 'advisory' holding fuel that places like Melbourne applied. In addition to, or instead of, or just a minimum of? Mind you, I consider 15 minutes to be pretty useless. Just enough to realise you should have had more.

1500ft is the holding altitude at the planned landing weight.

So any ATC holding fuel must be accounted for in addition to the alternate/alternate nil (15mins) requirement. Having said that, with the weather last week it's not uncommon for the enroute controllers to advise a hazard alert with holding of up to 60mins.

In my scenarios of wanting to carry an additional 30mins on top of the 20mins traffic fuel already accounted for in the flight plan, this will take me to 50mins. If we haven't burned the contingency up to this point then that will give us the full hour.

My numbers tended to be a bit larger. I recall offloading about 8 tonnes of cargo on a route check. Checker almost had heart failure. As it turned out, I needed every ounce.

Seeing as you would have real world experience on that particular route, I think a lot of checkies fail to remember that. A plan is just that and I would have loved to see the look on his face when you needed that extra fuel.

On a flight back from NAN earlier in the year when SYD was down to one runway. I wanted to use every last bit of extra weight we could carry out of there which was only about 1T anyway. Capt didn't want to take the performance calculations up to MTOW for whatever reason.

I strongly suggested that while the traffic holding now was only 20mins, in a few hours time as we approached 200nm from SYD that a hazard alert with up to 60mins holding would be waiting for us.

"Nope, I don't like taking the aircraft close to max weight". So, we left the tonne in the fuel truck. Sure enough, it happened, and we got 63mins of holding.

He was frantically figuring out the latest diversion times to alternates, so I ordered some dinner.

As far as I know, that concept is still very much alive at QF. Rather high tech now, as it's part of an app on each person's iPad. You have an exact position for your own fuel ordering, and then fuel usage for each part of a flight. The winners always took no extra. I was very much a loser on this scale. But, I did put some balance back into things. After working out what I wanted, for my own personal fuel policy, I'd then find out how much the bloke who was third from the top took, and I'd then add the difference between what he took, and what I was going take, as well. Basically, I transferred fuel from his aircraft to mine. I slept easily.

I love this and will keep it in my toolkit should this kind of thing migrate its way over.

 

[Saab34]

Great discussion thanks for the input.

Nope, I don't like taking the aircraft close to max weight".

Why?

…
One last one from me, so is it FOs that plan and run all the fuel and the Captain either says yes or no?