Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

AV, when you flew the Australia to Japan flight, did you see much of interest re numbers as you crossed the equator? Going from Southern to Northern Hemisphere on such a direct north track crossing the zone sounds like would be interesting to see all the met changes along the way.

Direct North/South gets you through the ITCZ as quickly as possible, which means you’re probably not exposed to the worst of the weather for long.

 

[Saab34]

If you look at the pairing, there is no CNS based crew, so we need to get up to CNS on day 1. Day 2 is VA77. Day 3 is VA78 landing on Day 4. We need 30hrs rest after a red eye, so we get back home on Day 5.

Do you operate the inbound and outbound domestics on Day 1 and 5? Or pure paxing only?

Sounds like a bloody tough slog that shift.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Do you operate the inbound and outbound domestics on Day 1 and 5? Or pure paxing only?

Sounds like a bloody tough slog that shift.

Nope you would operate them. And it’s not just one sector on Days 1 and 5 but 3 sectors!

 

[mjt57]

Because this is outside of our agreement, pilots need to put their hand up to be rostered to fly it.

Are there any sweeteners for those who do put their hands up?

 

[RSD]

Must be the week for pilots abusing big aircraft - a Singapore A380 this time - not quite as bad as the video title says though

 

[Saab34]

Nope you would operate them. And it’s not just one sector on Days 1 and 5 but 3 sectors!

That is tough. Day 5 should be just a simple leg home ie CNS-MEL/BNE/SYD.

I can see why the uptake is somewhat nog popular.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Are there any sweeteners for those who do put their hands up?

International allowances for 24hrs I guess?

Post automatically merged: Apr 26, 2024

That is tough. Day 5 should be just a simple leg home ie CNS-MEL/BNE/SYD.

I can see why the uptake is somewhat nog popular.

You'd think so, but nope. They want their money's worth out of you.

 

[Saab34]

One last one from me, are you allowed to opt in for day trips only? I know probably incredibly fatiguing but for someone, that say needed to be home every night (or most).

Or is it a case of probably go get a job at Jetstar if you want those day trips only…

 

[AviatorInsight]

One last one from me, are you allowed to opt in for day trips only? I know probably incredibly fatiguing but for someone, that say needed to be home every night (or most).

Or is it a case of probably go get a job at Jetstar if you want those day trips only…

Absolutely you can, if that's what you want. Some people would much rather do the day trips. I hate the Blue Emu that much that I prefer the overnight trips and get my flying out of the way in one big block.

 

[Saab34]

Thanks AV, we appreciate the time you take to enlighten us with some of these interesting details!

 

[jb747]

Must be the week for pilots abusing big aircraft - a Singapore A380 this time - not quite as bad as the video title says though.

Generally it's best to use the rudder pedal interconnect to exit the runway, as it won't give enough authority to skid the nose gear like that. But there's no feedback, so he would have no idea that it had smoked like that.

Added….

The rudder pedal interconnect gives up to 7º of nose pedal steering with any rudder movement. The tiller, on the other hand, gives up to 70º. The nose gear is very easy to skid, if you’re abrupt with tiller inputs, or taxiing too fast. 90º turns on the taxiways are best handled at around 10 knots. I used to use a bit of differential power to help the turns, as it also had a tendency to slow/stop in turns if you didn’t lead with power a bit. You can’t do 90º turns off the runway with just the rudder pedal steering, you need the tiller, but then you should also be slow. The turn in the video is to a high speed turnoff, so rudder pedals should be more than enough.

 

[Foreigner]

Scary attempt at landing at LAX, followed by go around:

 

[jb747]

Scary attempt at landing at LAX, followed by go around:

Covered a page or so ago.

 

[serfty]

Scary attempt at landing at LAX, followed by go around:
...

Covered a page or so ago.

Ask The Pilot

The engines weren’t running. They were turning happily enough. The ash melted as it went through the burners, but then cooled enough to accrete on the turbine blades, changing their shape slightly, and causing the engines to to compressor stall. Restarting in denser air certainly wasn’t...

www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au

I felt that just sitting on the couch! Wind was a steady 240/12, so straight down the runway for 24R.

It looks to me as though they just didn’t flare at all. If you watch the second attempt, it almost looks like they were going to do it again but looked like there was a sudden pull into the flare at the last second and saved it.

Just before they hit the control column was pulled back. The “forward“ movement was a relaxation of the control column to get the nose back down before pulling back again to arrest the sink on the second touchdown and holding that in until the go around.

Misjudged it. Given the conditions seem pretty mild, the aircraft is moving around a bit on the approach, so I get the feeling that he's 'stirring the stick'. The flare is too late. Touches down with a lot of back stick, which starts the aircraft rearing up on landing. So, a forward input to get the nose down, but then a rear input to control the rate. And then the spoilers start to rise, which adds to the nose up tendency. Very poor pitch control. Watch the elevator.

 

[Rabs97]

I felt that just sitting on the couch! Wind was a steady 240/12, so straight down the runway for 24R.

That’s just the surface reported wind. At altitude it may have been stronger, and then rapidly decreased just before touchdown, as wind at low altitude is slowed down by friction.

 

[Rabs97]

I bet JB and AI wish that had/have that guy commentating on their landings.

I would judge the “quality” of a landing by an unlicensed random on the ground hundreds of metres away.

There’s more factors in a stable approach than just how “hard” it looks, airspeed, path control, touchdown point etc. Conversely what may seem like a ‘greased’ on the the ground may actually be the result of a long float outside of the touchdown zone, the opposite of a ‘good’ landing.

Surprised to find a channel live-streaming approaches and departures for 8+ hrs every single day. Would get a bit boring after a while IMO.

 

[RooFlyer]

There’s more factors in a stable approach than just how “hard” it looks, airspeed, path control, touchdown point etc. Conversely what may seem like a ‘greased’ on the the ground may actually be the result of a long float outside of the touchdown zone, the opposite of a ‘good’ landing.

Yeah, my comment was tongue-in-cheek.

 

[jb747]

That’s just the surface reported wind. At altitude it may have been stronger, and then rapidly decreased just before touchdown, as wind at low altitude is slowed down by friction.

And there are plenty of giveaways when it does that. No, he's simply flared too late, and that's then led him into the pitch overcontrolling.

The wind is often quite different on the ground to the air, but given that we're only looking at the absolute last part of the approach, I think we can take it as being the surface wind.

I would judge the “quality” of a landing by an unlicensed random on the ground hundreds of metres away.

Why not? Passengers do, and they have no idea one way or the other.

There’s more factors in a stable approach than just how “hard” it looks, airspeed, path control, touchdown point etc. Conversely what may seem like a ‘greased’ on the the ground may actually be the result of a long float outside of the touchdown zone, the opposite of a ‘good’ landing.

Quite true. And this is a reasonably stable approach...it's just lacking that little bit of flare. And flair.

 

[LCC]

I had convinced myself from the daily observations of plane movements from my Sydney inner west apartment balcony that planes only took off and departed from the same directions on the parallel runways, so it was a revelation to learn that this is not the case! Family member was flying out on QF1 yesterday and I checked FR24 in readiness to wave her off. So was surprised to see that QF1 was dutifully awaiting an aircraft landing before taking off on 34L, meanwhile planes were also taking off and landing alongside in the opposite direction on 16R. I am sure this is old news to many but my question to the pilots is does the movement of aircraft like this in opposite directions create issues/challenges/extra stress for the pilots or is it all just smooth sailing (flying!!)?

 

[AviatorInsight]

I had convinced myself from the daily observations of plane movements from my Sydney inner west apartment balcony that planes only took off and departed from the same directions on the parallel runways, so it was a revelation to learn that this is not the case! Family member was flying out on QF1 yesterday and I checked FR24 in readiness to wave her off. So was surprised to see that QF1 was dutifully awaiting an aircraft landing before taking off on 34L, meanwhile planes were also taking off and landing alongside in the opposite direction on 16R. I am sure this is old news to many but my question to the pilots is does the movement of aircraft like this in opposite directions create issues/challenges/extra stress for the pilots or is it all just smooth sailing (flying!!)?

I think you mean taking off on 16L?

This is known as simultaneous opposite direction parallel runway operations (SODPROPS). It is a noise sharing mode when certain conditions allow it, such as light winds and good visibility. This will usually only happen during periods of low demand.

The way this works is that aircraft will arrive on 34L only and depart on 16L (unless 34L is operationally required).

It may create an issue if someone isn't following the localiser on 34L and then someone else isn't quite following the departure route off 16L, then a TCAS warning may go off. We will be told about any conflicting traffic before our take off or landing clearance and gives us time to keep an eye out for them.