Ask The Pilot

[dfcatch]

I've tried all of those settings. The sequences that I've put up onto youtube have used either 1 or 2 seconds. What I seem to be finding is that if I go below 2 seconds, the camera won't give me a correct exposure in the fairly dark coughpits. I'll look at it again tonight, and see if I can resolve exactly what it does.

Thanks JB

 

[SenZubEanS]

I know you said you dislike like LA as a place to go, but did you enjoy the one off trip to LAX just to get a hand on something other than SIN or LHR for a change?

 

[jb747]

One question I have - how do pilots know when they are about to encounter turbulence? When a pilot announces over the PA that things may get a little rough shortly, what indicators do they get that this is going to happen when there are no visible signs - eg outside of flying into a weather front or cloud. Does radar come into it? Is turbulence always visible on a radar?

Basically there are two ways. Mostly we see weather on the radar. Normally we'll either go around it, or find a clear passage through it. If we can't do that, then that's when you'll get the PA and be told to sit. We try to give a few minutes notice of that to the crew, but sometimes things that look like they'll be benign turn out to be lumpier than expected..which is when the word 'immediately' will be added to the PA. On climb or descent, we'll sometimes have warnings via ATC or other aircraft. There are hints...if the wind you are in is dramatically different to what is forecast or reported at the altitude you're going to, the change will often be smooth...but sometimes it can come in with a real bang, so that's always a good time to have the seat belt on either earlier or longer.

What would you need to do incorrectly as part of a take-off to cause a tail strike? Pull back before the plane has reached optimal take off speed?

Well, you can attempt to rotate with insufficient speed. That will normally be a result of a bad calculation of the take off data (i.e. Emirates in Melbourne, or Singair in Auckland), and is an extremely dangerous, and generally quite damaging situation. Alternatively, rotating at too high a rate (basically the tail gets to the ground before the aircraft has a chance to lift off) will tend to give you a touch. Another way that comes to mind is mostly a problem in the very high performance, large twins, in particular the 767, which can really have the speed run away after lift off, and in which the target attitude is very steep...get too much angle too soon, and again, you'll have a touch (I'll just add to this, that in this case the tail strikes the ground, after the main wheels are airborne). These aircraft often have tail bumpers. The 767 would regularly get to around 18" from the ground, so there isn't much in it.

A wind sheer encounter could well have you simply rotating to whatever you can get, and ignoring the tail strike risk, whilst a lesser encounter could simply reduce the climb performance after lift off enough to make a normally safe rotate rate give you a strike.

Are there seat controls in the coughpit that you configure to your preferred sitting angle/height? Do you argue with the FO about heat/temperature settings in the coughpit?

The seats are very adjustable, as are the rudder pedals. When I'm not there the FO can run the temperature at whatever he likes....no, there are no arguments about trivia like that....we aren't married.

 

[jb747]

I know you said you dislike like LA as a place to go, but did you enjoy the one off trip to LAX just to get a hand on something other than SIN or LHR for a change?

Well, it's always nice to refresh your memory of just how a place works..but other than that I was happy that it was a short slip.

 

[simongr]

Guessing it reminded you why you don't like being there

 

[scaredeycat]

Great video. Great thread.

 

[smit0847]

Hi JB

You can probably guess why Im asking this, but roughly how many hours a month would you work?

Thanks

 

[jb747]

You can probably guess why Im asking this, but roughly how many hours a month would you work?

Presumably so that you can tell me what a lazy, overpaid, and underqualifed person I am.

That varies enormously. Over the past 4 weeks, I've worked for 18 days. Over the next 8 weeks, I'm not going to work at all.

In the last 56 day bid period, I took two days leave, and otherwise worked on 30 days. Bear in mind though, that not all work means flying.

Every time that I set foot in the aircraft, I get an average of 11 hours flying time. Straight away that generates a limit of 9 flights per 30 day period. If I flew domestically, and so flew much shorter sectors, I'd go to work more often to hit the hours limits.

Bear in mind too, that the pay is based upon the flight hours. So, it's quite possible to spend 11 hours at work, and to be paid for a small fraction of them. Long haul is more popular because the density is higher...i.e. there are less hours that I'm not paid for with a long haul flight than short haul.

 

[chrisb]

Presumably so that you can tell me what a lazy, overpaid, and underqualifed person I am.

Nah, your CEO can do that.

 

[simongr]

Thinking about the 787 I wondered what the transition path for some pilots might be. Assuming that QF does actually get some and they don't all go to JQ this is I think the first time in a while that a new aircraft (not new variant) joining the fleet is smaller than the existing aircraft (I guess the A330 was the same?). So naturally in the past pilots have progressed from the 76x to the 74x to the 388. However moving from a 388 to the 787 would be a step down in terms of pax numbers and previously you have said that pax numbers drives $ for the pilot.

So are future 787 pilots likely to come from the 73x/763 fleet rather than from the 787 fleet?

I guess comparing to the A330 did many of the 744 pilots downgrade to the A330?

 

[jb747]

Thinking about the 787 I wondered what the transition path for some pilots might be. Assuming that QF does actually get some and they don't all go to JQ this is I think the first time in a while that a new aircraft (not new variant) joining the fleet is smaller than the existing aircraft (I guess the A330 was the same?). So naturally in the past pilots have progressed from the 76x to the 74x to the 388. However moving from a 388 to the 787 would be a step down in terms of pax numbers and previously you have said that pax numbers drives $ for the pilot.

So are future 787 pilots likely to come from the 73x/763 fleet rather than from the 787 fleet?

I guess comparing to the A330 did many of the 744 pilots downgrade to the A330?

Our expectation is that no QANTAS pilot will ever fly the 787.

In normal times, a 380 FO might go to the 787 for a command. It would not be available to me.

People who moved from the 747 to the 330 were almost all doing so associated with a promotion, so it isn't a downgrade. Virtually nobody moved in the same rank...though there are always a few exceptions.

If we ever see any, and if they are flown by us, I'd expect most to come from the 767.

 

[simongr]

That would pre-suppose though that another aircraft would be replacing the 763 on DOM flights...

 

[oz_mark]

That would pre-suppose though that another aircraft would be replacing the 763 on DOM flights...

It would appear that the A330 will be doing some of that (and in some cases, perhaps even 737's)

 

[simongr]

Hopefully I wont be flying DOM much by the time that they arrive - an influx of 73x flights would make the decision between QF and DJ easier - if both are flying the 737 I will switch between the two - I much prefer the 763.

 

[smit0847]

Presumably so that you can tell me what a lazy, overpaid, and underqualifed person I am.

That varies enormously. Over the past 4 weeks, I've worked for 18 days. Over the next 8 weeks, I'm not going to work at all.

In the last 56 day bid period, I took two days leave, and otherwise worked on 30 days. Bear in mind though, that not all work means flying.

Every time that I set foot in the aircraft, I get an average of 11 hours flying time. Straight away that generates a limit of 9 flights per 30 day period. If I flew domestically, and so flew much shorter sectors, I'd go to work more often to hit the hours limits.

Bear in mind too, that the pay is based upon the flight hours. So, it's quite possible to spend 11 hours at work, and to be paid for a small fraction of them. Long haul is more popular because the density is higher...i.e. there are less hours that I'm not paid for with a long haul flight than short haul.

Your CEO says you get paid more per hour than he does.

From our calculations, even if he worked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (which he obviously does not as this is impossible) that would mean pilots work less than 67 hours a month for this to be true.

Something doesn't add up!

 

[jb747]

Your CEO says you get paid more per hour than he does.

From our calculations, even if he worked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (which he obviously does not as this is impossible) that would mean pilots work less than 67 hours a month for this to be true.

Something doesn't add up!

You're right. Something doesn't add up. For a start, I've never heard of anyone working 24/7/365.

 

[Shy180]

jb,

Fascinating reading and videos - many thanks for your time spent in this thread

 

[harvyk]

Our expectation is that no QANTAS pilot will ever fly the 787.

If the 787 is in QF colours, but no QF pilot flies it, where will the two up the front most likely be coming from? Eg some aviation company like "Sun State airlines" who fly the dashes on behalf of QF or would they most likely be private contractors, who are "QF pilots" in the same sense that a "Telstra Contractor" works for Telstra, but is not an employee?

Or is this getting to far into the rumor mill?

 

[Tortuga]

If there was a swimming pool inside a aircraft and a person was swimming in it without touching the bottom would he/she not feel the majority of movement/jolting due to turbulence? I have had this thought in my head some time in the future passenger seats will exist on airliners that compensate for sudden movement/turbulence so the passenger does not feel any effects of turbulence or sudden movements. No idea where I come up with this stuff...

Another positive experience on QF17 today, the new 747's with the A380 seating are more comfortable for me and the crew did a great job.

 

[jb747]

If the 787 is in QF colours, but no QF pilot flies it, where will the two up the front most likely be coming from? Eg some aviation company like "Sun State airlines" who fly the dashes on behalf of QF or would they most likely be private contractors, who are "QF pilots" in the same sense that a "Telstra Contractor" works for Telstra, but is not an employee?

Or is this getting to far into the rumor mill?

Who knows? India? After all, they are only bus drivers.