Ask The Pilot

[AviatorInsight]

Great discussion thanks for the input.

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

Why?

Yep, no idea. I tried getting it out of him later enroute, and he wanted some sort of performance margin in there. Still makes no sense to me.

So is it FOs that plan and run all the fuel and the Captain either says yes or no?

Not quite. We will both look at the plan, and then each come up with a figure. Most people will take more than the flight plan on most flights (good thing). The captain will then have the final say on the figure.

Some are really good, and if my figure is higher than theirs, then they are happy to take my figure. Sometimes their figures are above mine, and I'm more than happy to take theirs.

It should be a case of who comes up with the highest number wins. There could be something that I missed and vice versa.

 

[Major]

This discussion reminds me of the old adage...

"The only time you have too much fuel is when you are on fire"

 

[flyer89]

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

Ideally it’s collaborative with input from the FO considered by the CPT however, the CPT will have the final say.

There are a few notorious captains who have magically done all the preflight before you even turn up and submitted the fuel figure (amazingly always min fuel). It’s also an excellent example of CRM (what not to do).

 

[jb747]

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.

A hold takes about 8 minutes. You could quite legally arrive with enough fuel to do 3.5 of them before .... silence. QF once had captain (small c intentional) who never took any extra, and would take fuel off if he had the opportunity. Thankfully the flight engineers liked living, so most would accidentally overfuel him, to whatever number the FO happened to give. A nasty bloke as well.

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.

One of the most useless things in aviation. Fuel you didn't load. (Also height above you, speed you don't have, and according to some, hours in a navigator's log book).

"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.

Wouldn't last in long haul. We lived at MTOW. MLW was pretty common too.

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

Flight planning run the plans. FO may get to order on his sector.

 

[jb747]

Yep, no idea. I tried getting it out of him later enroute, and he wanted some sort of performance margin in there. Still makes no sense to me.

And I'll bet he went derated, and at something like flap 5.

 

[FrustratedQP]

A hold takes about 8 minutes. You could quite legally arrive with enough fuel to do 3.5 of them before .... silence. QF once had captain (small c intentional) who never took any extra, and would take fuel off if he had the opportunity. Thankfully the flight engineers liked living, so most would accidentally overfuel him, to whatever number the FO happened to give. A nasty bloke as well.

RJ ?

 

[jb747]

RJ ?

No, but I'm sure he wasn't alone.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Wouldn't last in long haul. We lived at MTOW. MLW was pretty common too.

That's why I was glad to see LH ops before moving to domestic. Certainly made my comfort zone bigger.

And I'll bet he went derated, and at something like flap 5.

You definitely know the type.

 

[jb747]

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

Good question, to which I can’t give a real answer. Some people are just ‘company’ men, and whatever someone in the office (in many cases, themselves) dreams up, must be a good idea. The silly flap 25 idea that led to the QF1 accident is a good example. As a general rule, the office dwellers don’t do enough flying to realise how inappropriate some ideas are. One thing that is pretty much across the board though, is their inability to listen to anyone who tells them!

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

I don’t think so. There’s good (for want of a better word) and bad across each generation. I’ve stolen the occasional cunning idea from new pilots.

 

[flyer89]

The silly flap 25 idea that led to the QF1 accident is a good example. As a general rule, the office dwellers don’t do enough flying to realise how inappropriate some ideas are.

I’ve been told by those that were there at the time that the Captain was a good bloke and in general a good trainer (although it would appear played his part in the saga of Flap 25). I’m led to believe he even tried to fly OJH to the boneyard at the end of its life with tongue firmly placed in cheek.

 

[jb747]

I’ve been told by those that were there at the time that the Captain was a good bloke and in general a good trainer (although it would appear played his part in the saga of Flap 25).

Yes to both. But he was nicely set up by an ill thought out procedure.

I’m led to believe he even tried to fly OJH to the boneyard at the end of its life with tongue firmly placed in cheek.

Oh, I think he did fly it there. If I recall correctly, it was his retirement flight too.

 

[jb747]

I was at a reunion over the weekend. I guess that collectively, we had about 500,000 flying hours, but we all started on the same RAAF/RAN course. @straitman was responsible for some....

There was much hilarity, and many embarrassing stories from the past....and one story from a bloke whose son has only recently done his pilot training. As we discussed in a previous part of this thread, callsigns...like Top Gun's Maverick are not something you get to invent and give to yourself. They generally come from some sort of screw up and are given to you by your compatriots.

In this case our hero is flying a PC21 sim, doing a high stress exercise that is meant to culminate in a ejection. But, by the time he gets to that penultimate decision he's been pretty loaded up, and can't quite get the words that he needs. So he puts out a mayday, and declares he's having a premature ejaculation. So, after the instructors get over their fit of laughter he's assigned a nickname that will stick forever. He's now...



Two stroke.

 

[RooFlyer]

Here's a story on OMaaT regarding LH unable to do a visual approach into SFO at night, due to company policy forbidding visual separation of aircraft at night. Required ILS approach, which resulted in delays from ATC and an eventual diversion.

Any comments from our pilots on the LH policy and (without knowing the other traffic in the area) if this should have created the delays from ATC? ie general ability to integrate visual and ILS approaches.

A Lufthansa A350's Frustrating Oakland Diversion

 

[jb747]

Here's a story on OMaaT regarding LH unable to do a visual approach into SFO at night, due to company policy forbidding visual separation of aircraft at night. Required ILS approach, which resulted in delays from ATC and an eventual diversion.

Any comments from our pilots on the LH policy and (without knowing the other traffic in the area) if this should have created the delays from ATC? ie general ability to integrate visual and ILS approaches.

A Lufthansa A350's Frustrating Oakland Diversion

Wow. What a petty controller. He really needs to find another job. He's lucky LH didn't simply declare a fuel emergency, and give him SFO as the destination. That would have done wonders for his sequence. To be honest, US ATC, contrary to what they think, is some of the least helpful or capable, that you'll ever run into. In my experience, NYC wins the competition here, so I'm saddened to hear it's spread to California.

The issue here is not so much the visual approach, but rather the issue of visual separation. And there lies the rub, 'cos it's not a simple process of just looking outside and not running into other aircraft. Judging the distance is not easy, and aircraft disappear against all of the lights. Overall it sounds like a sensible policy.

 

[Quickstatus]

Any comments from our pilots on the LH policy

Some extra commentary from Victor over at VasAviation

 

[Brissy1]

Some extra commentary from Victor over at VasAviation

Another excellent analysis by Victor. He points out that there was a gap for the earlier PAL to do an instrument approach without delay; given the traffic volume I suspect that gap wasn't just lucky, it was created earlier, either because PAL told atc they couldn't do the broadcast approach much earlier (eg when PAL 1st listened to the atis), or atc knew these guys always say, late, that they can't and atc just anticipated. Waiting until you're in approach airspace before informing that you can't do the broadcast approach is way too late.

But more interesting, actually scary, was the UA and VIR approaches. I've worked in aviation safety and can appreciate that assessing and maintaining visual separation with an aircraft parallel to you heading for a parallel runway, at night, while doing an instrument approach,is fraught and so prohibited by the FAA. But from what I can see, VIR was expected to maintain visual sep from UA which was approaching him at 90degrees or more. Each aircraft doing about 400kph at the time. Impossible. Really just trusting that each doesn't go through final. On a visual approach. Crazy that FAA allows that.

 

[jb747]

Crazy that FAA allows that.

That sums it all up...

 

[justinbrett]

Wow. What a petty controller. He really needs to find another job. He's lucky LH didn't simply declare a fuel emergency, and give him SFO as the destination. That would have done wonders for his sequence. To be honest, US ATC, contrary to what they think, is some of the least helpful or capable, that you'll ever run into. In my experience, NYC wins the competition here, so I'm saddened to hear it's spread to California.

The issue here is not so much the visual approach, but rather the issue of visual separation. And there lies the rub, 'cos it's not a simple process of just looking outside and not running into other aircraft. Judging the distance is not easy, and aircraft disappear against all of the lights. Overall it sounds like a sensible policy.

It's the reverse in Australia, he would have got the ILS by default. From MATS:



I have seen a Tiger Airways A320 (SG, not AU) try to land on a highway, thinking it was the runway. Not subject to the above rule as it wasn't a heavy, but point remains...

 

[RooFlyer]

It's the reverse in Australia, he would have got the ILS by default. From MATS:

But if a visual is requested, I assume the same "wait till we can fit you in" would come from ATC?

"Runway in sight" - does that apply from any angle of approach to the airport, or an "on approach" point of view?

 

[mjt57]

With respect to the LH incident company rules aside, when in the air doesn't the captain have overall authority to do what he or she deems as necessary? What would've been the ramifications had he continued to land?