Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

I was wondering with wake turbulence separation and the Concorde was there more turbulence near the ground compared to subsonic plane of a similar size?

Whilst I've shared the airspace with a Concorde, I've never run into its wake, so I can't say for sure. It's a relatively small aircaft, so even if it did punch above its weight, I wouldn't expect it to be all that bad. The worst wake maker for its size is the 757.

 

[flyer89]

Whilst I've shared the airspace with a Concorde, I've never run into its wake, so I can't say for sure. It's a relatively small aircaft, so even it it did punch above its weight, I wouldn't expect to be all that bad. The worst wake maker for its size is the 757.

The 757 wake issue is actually quite interesting and a bit esoteric. Makes for some decent late night reading if you are interested in that kind of stuff. It had NASA involvement back in he day.

 

[Quickstatus]

The worst wake maker for its size is the 757

I thought the 757 and 767 shared a similar wing design?

 

[jb747]

I thought the 757 and 767 shared a similar wing design?

The 767 wasn't too bad, but the 757 was pretty noticeable, even in a 747.

They may both have been supercritical, but their planforms are totally different. I suspect most of the similarity existed in the coughpit, so they could chase dual endorsement...which is a purely dollar based design goal.

www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b757/pics03.shtml

www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b767/pics03.shtml

 

[JohnM]

Maybe not the right thread, but this sent to me by a retired EK A380 driver mate may be of general interest and worthy of a comment from @jb747: Hold Up, Emirates Wants Airbus To Build Even Bigger Jets...

 

[jb747]

Maybe not the right thread, but this sent to me by a retired EK A380 driver mate may be of general interest and worthy of a comment from @jb747: Hold Up, Emirates Wants Airbus To Build Even Bigger Jets...

It's easy to wish for things when there is no chance of having to actually pay for them. EK is lucky to be in a great geographical position, that allows it to push into other markets. Others can't really play that game, so, sadly, the 380 and it's ilk are dead.

 

[Fergo747]

Again, might not be one for this particular thread but given we have an esteemed QF A380 (retired) driver I figured it was the best place I could think of to ask.

As we know, QF are retiring / scrapping two of its 12 A380's (apparently one is being scrapped as we speak). The two that have been chosen for retirement are OQE and OQF. My question is why would these two aircraft have been chosen? I mean, there are OQA-OQD that are older than the two selected and we know that OQA had the uncontained engine failure so would have thought that those older aircraft would have been first in the pecking order for retirement.

 

[jb747]

As we know, QF are retiring / scrapping two of its 12 A380's (apparently one is being scrapped as we speak). The two that have been chosen for retirement are OQE and OQF. My question is why would these two aircraft have been chosen? I mean, there are OQA-OQD that are older than the two selected and we know that OQA had the uncontained engine failure so would have thought that those older aircraft would have been first in the pecking order for retirement.

It will have been decided by where they are in the cycle of maintenance heavy checks. Basically has an expensive check just been done, or is there one due in the next year or so.

Whilst OQA had its famous incident, it was repaired to manufacturing junctions, so it’s not as if it was done by your local panel beater. It was out of service for a long time too, which lowered its hours compared to the others around it. Nevertheless, there is a theory that it’s haunted by the ghost of Nancy.

It’s sad to see any of them going at such a young age though.

 

[ChrisGibbs]

The issue of evacuation when at a bridge is sufficiently grey that it comes up as a discussion item in command training. There is no answer that is necessarily correct, although when looked at in hindsight there’s plenty of opportunity to be wrong.

There’s probably a scale of time to be considered. Using a bridge would take, say 7-10 minutes to get everyone off. Using 3 slides (380), might take 5 minutes. Using all of the slides, less than 90 seconds. Injuries will range from nothing with the bridge, through probably minor but maybe a broken angle with ‘calm’ slide use. You’ll almost certainly have some broken legs and even hips with the full fat evacuation. So, question for the Captain is simply…“how much time do you think you have”. Said decision to be made with minimal information.

From back in July 2003

Investigation: 200302980 - Boeing Co 747-438, VH-OJU

This was an interesting example where a 5:15am arrival, curfew procedures and a 12 kt tailwind resulted in an evacuation where a couple of malfunctioning slides left one flight crew member (FO from memory) and three passengers seriously injured.

 

[RooFlyer]

Investigation: 200302980 - Boeing Co 747-438, VH-OJU

I notice in that report that the airline's name is only mentioned once, in the last page under 'safety reccommendations', although the pictures within the report obviously show a Qantas plane. The flight number not at all. Other reports of completed reports on incidents involving commercial jetliners I quickly checked did identify the airline eg AO-2021-028 (QantasLink), AO-2019-065 (SQ), AO-2021-037 (VA), AO-2020-058 (JetStar) .

I know these reports are not 'name and shame' exercises, but is there any reason anyone can suggest why the airline/operator name would not be given somewhere in the report, such as under flight details, or the 'General Details' summary at the front, where it usually appears? (I'm not suggesting this is a consiracy in favour of Qantas but genuine query.) Maybe just a 'one of those things' omission?

 

[jb747]

I suspect the difference comes down to the person who wrote the report. "The operator" is what I'd expect to see, so, to me, the naming is the unusual outcome.

 

[ChrisGibbs]

I went for a flight in a Decathlon once, out of Canberra. For some obscure reason I wanted to do an outside loop. I’ve grown up now.

I did a Decathlon endorsement many years back with Tom Dennis at the Airport Flying School in Canberra - VH-KAR from memory. Tom always said that you don’t finish flying a Decathlon until its tied down and your in the car driving away from the airport.

What made you want to do an outside loop?

 

[ausfox]

Chris, your statement ref keep it flying until it’s tied down is applicable to all taildraggers isn’t it?

 

[jb747]

What made you want to do an outside loop?

Too long ago...but presumably because the aircraft could, so why not. Young me didn't mind G and you couldn't do it in CT4, Macchi, A-4.

 

[I love to travel]

Luton airport closed today due to concerns runway would melt. Given many countries have 40 degree days not sure what the issue would be. Any thoughts?

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-advice/airports/runway-melts-at-london-luton-airport-has-temperatures-in-uk-near-40c/news-story/d7266194145cda7949f2af1c243e9065

 

[tgh]

Simple enough Bitumen compounds soften at high temps
Europe makes a harder base product but it is still plastic if it gets warm enouigh

 

[mjt57]

Aren't runways (on large airports) all concrete? Or is this not the case?

 

[tgh]

This saves me a bit of typing..

What Are The Differences Between Concrete And Asphalt Runways?

simpleflying.com

 

[oz_mark]

I notice in that report that the airline's name is only mentioned once, in the last page under 'safety reccommendations', although the pictures within the report obviously show a Qantas plane. The flight number not at all. Other reports of completed reports on incidents involving commercial jetliners I quickly checked did identify the airline eg AO-2021-028 (QantasLink), AO-2019-065 (SQ), AO-2021-037 (VA), AO-2020-058 (JetStar) .

I know these reports are not 'name and shame' exercises, but is there any reason anyone can suggest why the airline/operator name would not be given somewhere in the report, such as under flight details, or the 'General Details' summary at the front, where it usually appears? (I'm not suggesting this is a consiracy in favour of Qantas but genuine query.) Maybe just a 'one of those things' omission?

I think the ATSB changed its policy on this. Read a lot of the older reports, and they didn't mention the operator. They started mentioning the operator a few years ago.

 

[Saab34]

Gents. Most scenic domestic approach or departure? The wow factor ones.

Cairns?