Ask The Pilot

[AviatorInsight]

@AviatorInsight , Hobart airport is having its runway strengthened, in thirds, it seems. Northern ~third (830m according to reports) being done first, so that segment is closed; I saw a bunch of vehicles and people there today. Middle segment to be done over nights, in summer.

Does this pose any particular issues, esp in poor weather? Still get away with fully laden B737s or will fuel have to be managed a bit? I guess the machinery and people have to clear off for an aircraft takeoff/landing?

Correct, the threshold of runway 12 is being done first. This will give us a displaced threshold of 829m. Because of this, the ILS is now out of action. Very similar to BNE's 01R displaced threshold. So increased minimums and visibilities have been calculated with temporary charts using GPS and also the VOR approach (if we need it).

The only weight restriction we have been given is that the planned landing weight must not exceed 64T (2.3T below our maximum landing weight). Nothing about maximum take off weight departing though.

 

[RooFlyer]

Thanks; flying VA direct to BNE on Saturday - looking forward to a sporty take-off!

 

[mjt57]

Last night I watched a video on YT about the Alaska incident. It featured the FO and a captain who was a union rep.

It was an interesting interview. What sort of stuck out though, was the presence of the union guy who said that he was an "international captain". Going by his uniform I think he flies with some other airline.
The FO went to great pains to say how wonderful Alaska Airlines was and how fantastic her captain was during and post-incident.

I'd have loved to be a fly on the wall when they were discussing this off-camera. The FO has been the only crew member willing to go on air to talk about it, too.

 

[jb747]

Last night I watched a video on YT about the Alaska incident. It featured the FO and a captain who was a union rep.

It was an interesting interview. What sort of stuck out though, was the presence of the union guy who said that he was an "international captain". Going by his uniform I think he flies with some other airline.
The FO went to great pains to say how wonderful Alaska Airlines was and how fantastic her captain was during and post-incident.

I'd have loved to be a fly on the wall when they were discussing this off-camera. The FO has been the only crew member willing to go on air to talk about it, too.

Not everyone wants to be on TV.

I was a little amused by her surprise that there was a hole in the aircraft. There pretty much has to be for there to be a bang and rapid depressurisation. The only question will be how big a hole.

 

[jb747]

This guy does a very good explanation of the recent ATR spinning crash.

 

[Quickstatus]

ATR spinning crash.

The holes in the cheese definitely lined up.

The first hole was the airline appeared to allow them to take off and fly in severe icing conditions with a MEL that prevented them from flying higher...

 

[jb747]

The holes in the cheese definitely lined up.

The first hole was the airline appeared to allow them to take off and fly in severe icing conditions with a MEL that prevented them from flying higher...

Engineers don’t know anything about icing. If the book says an MEL exists, they’ll try to apply it. It’s up to the Captain to accept, or reject, an MEL. I once rejected an icing related one in Sydney, on a very hot summer day. It might have been 30º on the ground, but it was still going to be well below zero where we were going. If they’d been 30-40 knots faster, as Magnar says they should have been, then I expect the outcome would have been different.

One other thing that some pilots seem to forget, is that once an MEL has been applied and accepted by a previous Captain, nothing says that you have to (continue that acceptance). The conditions that made him acceptable for him, may not be there for you. Engineers complain loudly when that happens, and the cheeky ones may even take it upon themselves to contact the pilot management..which always makes for an amusing phone call, as they’ll invariably leave something out of the story.

 

[Quickstatus]

If they’d been 30-40 knots faster, as Magnar says they should have been, then I expect the outcome would have been different.

Sure, if they got into severe icing, but wouldn't the better decision be to not go there in the first place especially when the MEL meant they would be in the thick of it and as Magnar suggested that severe icing is a "get out of there now type of emergency". Maybe they could have refused. Maybe there were other pressures that made them not refuse?

 

[mjt57]

Mentour Pilot has another vid out. This time it's about Qantas. Just wondering what those who worked for QF (or who still do) think of this:

 

[JohnM]

Mentour Pilot has another vid out. This time it's about Qantas. Just wondering what those who worked for QF (or who still do) think of this:

Already covered: Needed to be said….Mentour discusses the fall of QF

 

[Melburnian1]

@jb747 , today QF1 had to return to SYD due to a medical incident. It had taken off at 1524 AEST and travelled slightly to the south of Bathurst before turning back.

Given SYD-SIN is the shorter sector, would it have had to dump fuel to enable landing? How many kilograms/tonnes would be the range that it may be carrying for SYD-SIN and if applicable, how much might have been dumped?

 

[RSD]

@jb747 , today QF1 had to return to SYD due to a medical incident. It had taken off at 1524 AEST and travelled slightly to the south of Bathurst before turning back.

Given SYD-SIN is the shorter sector, would it have had to dump fuel to enable landing? How many kilograms/tonnes would be the range that it may be carrying for SYD-SIN and if applicable, how much might have been dumped?

Geez they didn't get very far!

 

[jb747]

@jb747 , today QF1 had to return to SYD due to a medical incident. It had taken off at 1524 AEST and travelled slightly to the south of Bathurst before turning back.

Given SYD-SIN is the shorter sector, would it have had to dump fuel to enable landing? How many kilograms/tonnes would be the range that it may be carrying for SYD-SIN and if applicable, how much might have been dumped?

At a guess, zero fuel weight would be around 370 tonnes. Fuel order for the sector probably around 90 tonnes, and it would have burnt around 15 by Bathurst. Return wouldn’t burn much, so you’d be left with around 70 tonnes, for a weight of about 440 tonnes. Max landing weight is nominally 391 tonnes. So, you’d have about 50 tonnes too much fuel.

But…the A380 cannot dump all of its fuel. It actually can’t dump below about 80 tonnes remaining, so even though nominally over max landing weight, it would be unable to dump any of this fuel. You’d simply land overweight.

Max landing weight isn’t the maximum weight at which you can land. You can do so in some cases right up to max take off weight (which is almost 200 tonnes over MLW). It’s simply the maximum weight at which you can do so at a nominated rate of descent, without requiring follow up checks. If the aircraft were landed smoothly at a normal rate of descent, it would be well below this figure, and no action would be required.

 

[Melburnian1]

Thank you @jb747 for such a comprehensive response.

@Stanley Lambchop posted: he's in Y on today's QF1:

Going to be disembarked. Need to re cater as some meals were already in ovens and no longer edible also need to perform checks due to landing with heavy fuel load. Delay could be a further 2-3 hours at a guess.