Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

How did the sim book launch go?

Have to admit that I find the entire book thing to be quite ludicrous. Not just for Richard, but for almost any pilot involved in an incident. Most of us are boring as the proverbial, and managing to do a good job on the day, isn't riveting reading. Nor does it mean you'd do a good job on any other day, so it doesn't make you a guru.

 

[RSD]

Have to admit that I find the entire book thing to be quite ludicrous. Not just for Richard, but for almost any pilot involved in an incident. Most of us are boring as the proverbial, and managing to do a good job on the day, isn't riveting reading. Nor does it mean you'd do a good job on any other day, so it doesn't make you a guru.

I think for a lot of the population that would be the case - prefer to stay out of the limelight. To me QF32 was very much a team effort whereas Sully putting the Airbus down in the Hudson was more down to his skill.

 

[flyer89]

To me QF32 was very much a team effort whereas Sully putting the Airbus down in the Hudson was more down to his skill

Sully did have a rather good FO to be fair however, the aspect that the media completely misunderstand about that event was that the decision to land in the water was the most critical part. Without him accepting his reality when he did the outcome would not have been the same.

 

[RSD]

Sully did have a rather good FO to be fair however, the aspect that the media completely misunderstand about that event was that the decision to land in the water was the most critical part. Without him accepting his reality when he did the outcome would not have been the same.

The making of that decision very early was the key to it from what I understand.

 

[jb747]

To me QF32 was very much a team effort whereas Sully putting the Airbus down in the Hudson was more down to his skill.

Almost all events that resolve well are team efforts, whereas those that devolve to the one man band very rarely work out. In the case of QF32, there was an exceptional FO. The people in the back row could help with the calculations and PA, but beyond that there was little they could do…

As for Sully…well, the aircraft was going to be coming down in about 3 minutes, no matter how much skill you had. The FO worked for the entire time, the movie and media just choose to forget that. Sully made two important decisions. The first was obviously something that he’d decided on many years prior, and that was to start the APU. That was the 767 pilots’ cure to everything too. Gave your hand something to do for a second or two. Might help and can’t hurt. The second was to go for the river and not an airport. Whilst that was a quick calculation at the time, we’re all well aware of the generally poor outcomes for people who try turning back. The landing was nothing special though, in fact, it was quite the opposite of what you’re supposed to do. Basically he kept pulling back until he hit the alpha limit, and the aircraft just mushed into the water. The alpha limit wouldn’t have existed if he hadn’t started the APU, so that was the real positive outcome from that selection. The miracle was the fact that everyone survived, not so much the flying itself.

Sully did have a rather good FO to be fair however, the aspect that the media completely misunderstand about that event was that the decision to land in the water was the most critical part. Without him accepting his reality when he did the outcome would not have been the same.

Another excellent FO, whom I believe had actually been a Captain on another type. Worth noting that when IFALPA (the international pilot body) hands out awards, it’s very rarely to an individual, but almost always to the Captain and FO. They understand.

The making of that decision very early was the key to it from what I understand.

Making the decision later would have wasted height/energy, and there was a very limited amount of that. Literally finding the best looking spot right in front of you, was about all that could reasonably be done. Sully’s greatest contribution came afterwards, as he become a bit of a spokesperson for the entire pilot body in the USA.

 

[RSD]

Almost all events that resolve well are team efforts, whereas those that devolve to the one man band very rarely work out. In the case of QF32, there was an exceptional FO. The people in the back row could help with the calculations and PA, but beyond that there was little they could do…

As for Sully…well, the aircraft was going to be coming down in about 3 minutes, no matter how much skill you had. The FO worked for the entire time, the movie and media just choose to forget that. Sully made two important decisions. The first was obviously something that he’d decided on many years prior, and that was to start the APU. That was the 767 pilots’ cure to everything too. Gave your hand something to do for a second or two. Might help and can’t hurt. The second was to go for the river and not an airport. Whilst that was a quick calculation at the time, we’re all well aware of the generally poor outcomes for people who try turning back. The landing was nothing special though, in fact, it was quite the opposite of what you’re supposed to do. Basically he kept pulling back until he hit the alpha limit, and the aircraft just mushed into the water. The alpha limit wouldn’t have existed if he hadn’t started the APU, so that was the real positive outcome from that selection. The miracle was the fact that everyone survived, not so much the flying itself.

Another excellent FO, whom I believe had actually been a Captain on another type. Worth noting that when IFALPA (the international pilot body) hands out awards, it’s very rarely to an individual, but almost always to the Captain and FO. They understand.

Making the decision later would have wasted height/energy, and there was a very limited amount of that. Literally finding the best looking spot right in front of you, was about all that could reasonably be done. Sully’s greatest contribution came afterwards, as he become a bit of a spokesperson for the entire pilot body in the USA.

It would be an interesting study for someone in uni to go through a lot of cases and find out what the % of successful outcomes were when a pilot decided to return to the field following a catastrophic failure just after take off.

I know that when the firefighters in Manhattan were despatched for an aircraft crash in the Hudson they were all thinking tourist helicopter not a commercial airliner.

 

[jb747]

It would be an interesting study for someone in uni to go through a lot of cases and find out what the % of successful outcomes were when a pilot decided to return to the field following a catastrophic failure just after take off.

I'm sure that many studies would already exist on this, though they would relate to single engined aircraft like the small Cessnas. An airliner would be much worse in terms of glide ratio! Note that it's called the "impossible turn", and for good reason.

Anyway a good start to your reading here:

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2018/Nov/164492/P-8740-44.pdf

 

[RSD]

I'm sure that many studies would already exist on this, though they would relate to single engined aircraft like the small Cessnas. An airliner would be much worst in terms of glide ratio! Note that it's called the "impossible turn", and for good reason.

Anyway a good start to your reading here:

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2018/Nov/164492/P-8740-44.pdf

When I did my training it was hammered into me that it was the "impossible turn" and don't even think about it unless there is absolutely nothing in front of me to use - and that I should always before takeoff pre-plan where I was going to put it down in the case of an engine failure just after takeoff. Fortunately I did the majority of my flying in east Africa and most of the time there would be dirt roads or tracks available. In the U.S. I preplanned for freeways, interstates etc. - which always seems to have a better success rate than those that attempt to return - judging by what I saw when flying over there.

It was always in the back of my mind when flying the TB-21 to get the gear up and get up (get some altitude) as soon as possible.

I would imagine just about everything is against you in an airliner just after takeoff - glide ratio, space needed to put it down etc etc. - and it is only probably going to get worse while they keep encircling airports with urban developments all over the world - they don't seem to think about "lets build the airport on the west side and do all future expansion to the north, south and east side of the city"

 

[flyer89]

When I did my training it was hammered into me that it was the "impossible turn" and don't even think about it unless there is absolutely nothing in front of me to use - and that I should always before takeoff pre-plan where I was going to put it down in the case of an engine failure just after takeoff. Fortunately I did the majority of my flying in east Africa and most of the time there would be dirt roads or tracks available. In the U.S. I preplanned for freeways, interstates etc. - which always seems to have a better success rate than those that attempt to return - judging by what I saw when flying over there.

It was always in the back of my mind when flying the TB-21 to get the gear up and get up (get some altitude) as soon as possible.

I would imagine just about everything is against you in an airliner just after takeoff - glide ratio, space needed to put it down etc etc. - and it is only probably going to get worse while they keep encircling airports with urban developments all over the world - they don't seem to think about "lets build the airport on the west side and do all future expansion to the north, south and east side of the city"

Certain cowboys who like to enter in the proverbial measuring contests will claim they can pull it off. Whilst perhaps they are right (with absolutely everything going your way and a great deal of skill and experience) they fail to recognize the audience that it’s directed at which is people with low hours and experience who are training and therefore, quite irresponsible.

I suspect the claim that they could successfully turn back and land at the field is likely a delusion based on anticipating (knowing it’s coming as you are practicing EFATO’s). Something which you are never doing in real life.

 

[RSD]

Certain cowboys who like to enter in the proverbial measuring contests will claim they can pull it off. Whilst perhaps they are right (with absolutely everything going your way and a great deal of skill and experience) they fail to recognize the audience that it’s directed at which is people with low hours and experience who are training and therefore, quite irresponsible.

I suspect the claim that they could successfully turn back and land at the field is likely a delusion based on anticipating (knowing it’s coming as you are practicing EFATO’s). Something which you are never doing in real life.

Totally agree.

 

[jb747]

Certain cowboys who like to enter in the proverbial measuring contests will claim they can pull it off. Whilst perhaps they are right (with absolutely everything going your way and a great deal of skill and experience) they fail to recognize the audience that it’s directed at which is people with low hours and experience who are training and therefore, quite irresponsible.

I suspect the claim that they could successfully turn back and land at the field is likely a delusion based on anticipating (knowing it’s coming as you are practicing EFATO’s). Something which you are never doing in real life.

Well, I certainly wouldn't try. Way back when I taught at Pt Cook, the quick and dirty rule was that anything that was in the arc from wingtip through the cowl to the other wingtip, you could get to. That basically amounts to straight ahead, with a bit of jink to avoid anything solid.

Funny thing too, is that those cowboys who reckon they could do it (anything really) have never actually done so. It's all in their heads...where it should stay.

When I flew the A-4, we didn't even practice forced landings. Obviously we had an alternative, but the assessment was that the chances of actually being in a spot from which you could carry out a forced lob were very low, and the likelihood of an accident during practice was quite high. The sums didn't add up.

 

[RooFlyer]

Probably one for @AviatorInsight .

An inconvenient band of fog right over Hobart airport this morning.


What are the rules for flying into HBA? Is there any guidance assistance, or is it all visual - see the runway within X hundred feet, or no-go?

Separately, could fog like this confuse the altimeter when you are above it (I'm thinking of the footage countdown close to landing).

 

[jb747]

What are the rules for flying into HBA? Is there any guidance assistance, or is it all visual - see the runway within X hundred feet, or no-go?

I'm sure AV will tell us the practical issues of Hobart. It has a number of approaches, but none of them will get you lower than about 320'. The airfield itself is around 12', so basically the ILS gets you to 300'. It doesn't matter whether your aircraft is capable of an automatic landing or not. It does not lower the minima.

This scenario of very low lying fog is quite weird to fly into. For instance flying into Dubai, it was reasonably common, but the Cat III approach capability gave us an approach with no minimum altitude. You'd literally be visual on top, pretty much right down to the flare, at which point you'd sink into the fog

Separately, could fog like this confuse the altimeter when you are above it (I'm thinking of the footage countdown close to landing).

The altimeter countdown that you hear is based upon the radar altimeter. Fog has no effect on radar or barometric altimeters.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Probably one for @AviatorInsight .

An inconvenient band of fog right over Hobart airport this morning.

What are the rules for flying into HBA? Is there any guidance assistance, or is it all visual - see the runway within X hundred feet, or no-go?

Separately, could fog like this confuse the altimeter when you are above it (I'm thinking of the footage countdown close to landing).

There is an ILS at HBA capable of getting us down to 208ft above ground level (AGL). Minimum visibility required is 800m. Fairly standard for an ILS. Once we hit the minima of 208ft AGL we need to at least see the runway end indication lights. If not, you go around.

We have approval at some airports for an autoland even if there is no CATIII minima like JB was talking about above. Places like ADL runway 23 and CBR runway 35 come to mind. Although this is to be used in extreme circumstances.

Unfortunately, HBA is not approved for Autoland.

As for the fog, the radio altimeter works on radio wave frequencies, so fog does not affect it. The same goes for the pressure altimeter, where the barometric pressure is not changing, so the fog has no effect.

 

[torks]

We have approval at some airports for an autoland even if there is no CATIII minima like JB was talking about above. Places like ADL runway 23 and CBR runway 35 come to mind. Although this is to be used in extreme circumstances.

What's the justification for allowing the full autoland even if there isn't CATIII. It seems like its shortcutting something?

 

[AviatorInsight]

What's the justification for allowing the full autoland even if there isn't CATIII. It seems like its shortcutting something?

It’s not something that would be taken lightly, but conditions like unforecast fog, pilot incapacitation, obscured windows, and any other situation the pilot in command deems it necessary to conduct.

If I had to do an emergency rule break and autoland the aircraft because that was the safest option then I would have no hesitation to do so, even if the runway was not approved.

There‘s a lot that goes into getting an airport CATII/III certified. It’s not always just about the ILS itself. There’s ATC procedures, additional runway lighting, security at the airport, obstacle clearance areas, crew qualifications and more.

 

[jb747]

What's the justification for allowing the full autoland even if there isn't CATIII. It seems like its shortcutting something?

Cat III is no minima and virtually no visibility. You must autoland.

Cat II isn’t much better, and very few aircraft can reasonably be manually landed from the bottom of a Cat II approach.

Cat I gives you about 15 seconds before you need to be starting the flare, so not long to get the proverbial in a pile. It’s very often a good option to continue to the autoland, even off a Cat I (or even better) approach. And doing the occasional autoland in good conditions (with the low vis procedures) is good practice for when you need to do it.

 

[Major]

Driving down to OOL this morning I was looking directly into the sun for some of the way and found it difficult to ensure I stayed in my lane.
How difficult is it for the PF when taking off or landing looking into the sun?

 

[jb747]

Driving down to OOL this morning I was looking directly into the sun for some of the way and found it difficult to ensure I stayed in my lane.
How difficult is it for the PF when taking off or landing looking into the sun?

Another reason for the occasional autoland.

Mostly it's not a real issue, in that you need the runway to be lined up east/west, and you need to be taking off or landing in that direction. So, only a small window of both time and direction.

Melbourne 27 is the worst that I can think off, especially if the sun is peaking through but there have been showers, and the runway is wet. Then the reflected glare can be bad enough to make judging the flare difficult. Well, at least that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Melbourne 27 is the worst that I can think off, especially if the sun is peaking through but there have been showers, and the runway is wet. Then the reflected glare can be bad enough to make judging the flare difficult. Well, at least that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Perth 06 in the morning can be very annoying too, same with Darwin on 29 after a summer shower in the evening and with the runway’s inconsistent slope, I have the same answer as you do with Melbourne.