Ask The Pilot

[Hvr]

When a plane arrives at a destination and another flight crew is taking over for the return trip, i.e. QF23 returning as QF24 from BKK, do the flight crew physically met/interact?

Or is it a case of the log book is filled out* and the new flight crew gets to read it and then proceed?

*Assuming of course that any faults/concerns have been electronically advised to the company and if required appropriate staff meet the plane.

Thanks in advance.

 

[JohnM]

It's a pretty decent discussion of PIOs and stability. I wonder if the more controlled response that eventually settles it down is indicative of a change of control. BTW, I thought Juan was a Captain, but apparently not.

One thing that he mentions is possible wake. Not likely in a crosswind. A more likely cause of a sudden wind change as you land at London will be the 'blanking' of the wind that happens as you come abeam the hangars/terminal. This was especially evident on 27R, with a strong southerly, and would kick in (or out) at around flare height. He also mentions how tightly ATC keep the arriving aircraft. They certainly do, but not when they're doing 'actual' ILS approaches.

I was aware from things that he has said that he is a B777 FO and I was a bit curious about that but had never followed up on it.

Your comment prompted me to do a bit of internet rummaging on a lazy day.

I found this podcast from 2020 interesting: RFT 376: Youtube Star Juan Browne — Ready For Takeoff Podcast

You might be interested in his military experience.

He's had some career interruptions, which he elaborates on in the podcast, and why he left the military. In a nutshell, it seems he's opted for lifestyle as an FO on a widebody rather than a captain on a narrowbody.

At the time of the podcast recording he was recovering from a prostatectomy (

), and a subsequent prostate cancer recurrence had caused him to be declared medically unfit for some time:

.

BTW 'Juan' seems to be a nickname. His real first name is Thomas.

 

[jb747]

When a plane arrives at a destination and another flight crew is taking over for the return trip, i.e. QF23 returning as QF24 from BKK, do the flight crew physically met/interact?

Or is it a case of the log book is filled out* and the new flight crew gets to read it and then proceed?

*Assuming of course that any faults/concerns have been electronically advised to the company and if required appropriate staff meet the plane.

Generally no, but it does vary a bit, largely depending upon the customs/security rules of the terminal. Go back a decade or so, and we'd be on the aircraft as the last passenger stepped off, and be waiting for the coughpit door to open. Now, in many places, you'll see the inbound crew as they walk out of the aerobridge, and that's it. There shouldn't be any need for a verbal hand over though. Everything should be entered into the log. Leaving something out is very poor airmanship, and does nobody, including the company, any favours.

In the log itself you're looking to ensure any items have been closed off, and the fuel/oil items are signed. You'd go back over the last couple of flights to see if there was anything of interest. There will also be a listing of any applicable MELs, and you actually need to go through the manufacturer's manual for any that had any operational significance. These are just pulled up on the iPads/laptops these days, but they used to be huge books. Sometimes these could be quite time consuming, but in general there would only one or two, and most had no impact in the coughpit.

In flight, many aircraft automatically downlink fault data. Pretty much anything that causes a warning will be sent, but much more besides. We'd also send any information of interest via the datalink (ACARS). Very occasionally something would come up that would have you calling maintenance watch via the satphone. Never for advice though...if it wasn't in our procedural manuals, it didn't happen (which means no made up engineering workarounds).

 

[D747]

Hi JB. Did you ever use this routing MEL>LAX?

 

[jb747]

No, never anything like that. I've flown over the northern part of NZ, but never visited Tasmania first. But, a look at the wind charts shows us why.

 

[D747]

No, never anything like that. I've flown over the northern part of NZ, but never visited Tasmania first. But, a look at the wind charts shows us why.


View attachment 362834

Thanks JB.
Is that route worked out by the pilots or others?

 

[jb747]

Is that route worked out by the pilots or others?

Flight planning. Basically a computer run looks at about a zillion different permutations, looking for the cheapest route. Occasionally overflight costs are expensive enough to make flying some extra miles worthwhile, so it's not just a search for the fastest route. Obviously flying across the Pacific is one place where quickest will pretty well always be the choice. The pilots don't get involved and generally just take the route as given. But, if it was cutting closer to (say) a cyclone than you wanted, you'd simply give them a ring and it would only take a few minutes to run a new plan. In Sydney, in the good old days, you'd actually talk to the planner who did your flight when you signed on. All just comes via the iPad now.

 

[Saab34]

AV, in light of the recent Alaska 737 door issue, would you be able to give us some procedural details in what happens in the event of a decompression?

Would you be advised on any instruments which specific door detaches? I assume bells and whistles start going off the minute the cabin pressure is breached?

Listening to the ATC playback on the news before, the pilot obviously sounded quite stressed, I assumed that they didn’t know that it was a door that went? I guess could be many variables not just a door.

 

[AviatorInsight]

AV, in light of the recent Alaska 737 door issue, would you be able to give us some procedural details in what happens in the event of a decompression?

Would you be advised on any instruments which specific door detaches? I assume bells and whistles start going off the minute the cabin pressure is breached?

Listening to the ATC playback on the news before, the pilot obviously sounded quite stressed, I assumed that they didn’t know that it was a door that went? I guess could be many variables not just a door.

A sudden decompression like that would mean that something big has let go. The procedure would be for the Capt to become pilot flying and the FO to be the pilot monitoring. The reason for this is because the pressurisation panel is above the FO’s head.

Of course there is nothing stopping the Capt to conduct the memory items (after oxy masks are on of course) if they so desired and the FO was to remain pilot flying.

The cabin diff is around 4-5psi by 15,000ft with the cabin altitude just starting to rise.

The moment the cabin altitude reaches 10,000ft the cabin altitude warning horn will sound.

After the initial action of getting the oxy on the FO will select the pressurisation controller to manual and force the outflow valves closed. We then check the cabin altitude and differential pressure. If it’s uncontrollable then we put the pass signs on and deploy the pass oxygen masks.

If a specific door has let go then yes we will get an indication as the locks will no longer be in place.

In this case however, I’m led to believe that even though it was a door on the -9, it was deactivated because it wasn’t needed. Only required for an all Y config? So they would have deactivated it to reduce the maintenance costs.

Which on the inside it would have looked like a normal window and wall covering up the door. Whether or not there was a light for it in the flight deck, I’m not sure.

 

[Saab34]

Thankyou so much for your insight.

I assume such training is done during type rating?

 

[AviatorInsight]

Thankyou so much for your insight.

I assume such training is done during type rating?

Absolutely and then during some cyclics too to revise.

 

[JohnM]

The latest from Petter:

A very moving and carefully presented episode.

Pilots: any comments?

 

[jb747]

A sudden decompression like that would mean that something big has let go. The procedure would be for the Capt to become pilot flying and the FO to be the pilot monitoring. The reason for this is because the pressurisation panel is above the FO’s head.

Interesting. In my case it was quite a long time later that we had a changeover. That let me try to work out what was going on. But, if the outflow is closed, and the cabin is still going up, there is no point hanging around doing procedural items.

The cabin diff is around 4-5psi by 15,000ft with the cabin altitude just starting to rise.

The moment the cabin altitude reaches 10,000ft the cabin altitude warning horn will sound.

We'll probably never really find out, but as the altitude was quite low, and the differential not all that high, it should have been all that violent...at least as long as you weren't nearby. The upshot is that it might not have been as immediately obvious to the coughpit as you might imagine. I wonder how long it took the cabin to reach the actual altitude.

In some ways the checklists are not based on large holes and rapid depressurisations. They're more about things like outflow valve controller failures, or duct leaks. Things that might be fixable (in flight), but which are also relatively slow. A fully open outflow might give you something like 5,000 fpm cabin rate of climb, whereas a few square metres of hole gives around 100,000 fpm.

 

[jb747]

A very moving and carefully presented episode.

Pilots: any comments?

I haven't watched it yet. But, first thought was "Alaskan again!"

 

[Saab34]

JB, having operated to the US yourself and likely more familiar with the lingo, the crew here didn’t declare a mayday, just an ‘emergency’. Any reason why? Just a US way of declaring an emergency? I always thought it was either not an emergency, a Pan, or a Mayday.

 

[justinbrett]

JB, having operated to the US yourself and likely more familiar with the lingo, the crew here didn’t declare a mayday, just an ‘emergency’. Any reason why? Just a US way of declaring an emergency? I always thought it was either not an emergency, a Pan, or a Mayday.

Jumping in here - no, the AS aircraft should have declared a MAYDAY or PAN PAN. This video is a great example why, I don't think ATC ever really understood what was going on.

That said, I thought ATC were extremely poor throughout this clip. IMO it is a great example of how not to handle an emergency (as ATC).

One of the youtube comments put it best "Some say atc is still asking for the nature of the emergency to this day. Hats off the pilots for their patience."

In an emergency, that is completely backwards. ATC should be the ones displaying patience. Sure they pilots didn't say the code word, but they said "declare an emergency" and "depressurised" enough times for ATC to be able to connect the dots.

I did a playback on FilghtRadar. The airspace wasn't that busy and there were no apparent conflicts once the aircraft was on a northerly vector (granted FR doesn't show everything). Don't be vectoring emergency aircraft if you don't have to, that's just unnecessary workload.

 

[Saab34]

Thanks I was puzzled that when changing between frequencies/controller the next didn’t seem to know much about the ‘emergency’. I guess the air traffic control department could come back and say ‘well the aircraft didn’t advise mayday’ in regards to their non urgent response.

I did find it weird that the pilot didn’t advise mayday.

 

[justinbrett]

Thanks I was puzzled that when changing between frequencies/controller the next didn’t seem to know much about the ‘emergency’. I guess the air traffic control department could come back and say ‘well the aircraft didn’t advise mayday’ in regards to their non urgent response.

I did find it weird that the pilot didn’t advise mayday.

Once a MAYDAY / PAN PAN is declared each ATC station must do a positive handover with the next with all of this information.

I think ATC would have performed better if this was declared (or at least I hope so), but they shouldn't have had to.

 

[jb747]

In the same way that the USA is supposedly a metric nation, their use of ICAO ATC standards and rules is casual at best. Declaring an emergency means a total of nothing, but it’s at least better than another I heard recently in which an aircraft aborted on the runway with an engine fire, and the call was basically “roll the trucks”. Casual for no good reason.

A mayday or pan call gives ATC some indication of your degree of concern and shuts everyone else on frequency up. My experience with Manila ATC was the complete opposite of this event, with their calls being very few but to the point, and any internal handovers happened without any questions to us. What information there was, was obviously passed along efficiently.

Sometimes things are not as obvious in the coughpit as you might expect. In this case, I’d expect they had “Cabin Altitude” warning of some sort, but as it was a 737, it may just have been a light, and not the sort of data given by an ECAM/EICAS system. I don’t know what sort of initial noise there may have been, as this event didn’t have any sort of initiating ‘explosion’ (our oxy bottle gave us a huge “thud”). They weren’t all that high, so the differential pressure wasn’t all that great, which means the physiological effects aren’t as obvious. And locked away in the coughpit, they’re quite a distance from the actual event, which serves to moderate the effects. Plus they didn’t have all that far to descend to get back to/below 10,000’. All of this serves to lower the concern factor. But, once they got a phone call from the back, and became aware that passengers were seated right next to a door sized opening, then their continued well being would be extremely concerning. So, it could have started as pan, but then should have been upgraded to a mayday.

 

[mjt57]

This B737 thing certainly has "melted" the internet going by all the coverage that the content creators are giving it on YouTube.

One channel though, was interesting. 4 ex US military and now commercial pilots on the "Mover and Gonky" channel just covered it. They seemed to think that declaring an emergency was OK. One of them thought that anything more would be extraneous comms.

Thoughts, JB, given that you've actually experienced such an incident but at cruise altitude.