Ask The Pilot

[TomVexille]

What's the reason for HBA not using aerobridges....

Privatisation

 

[RooFlyer]

What's the reason for HBA not using aerobridges....

The owners don’t want to spend the capital cost and the ongoing operating cost when the peasants have been used to walking across the apron in the wind in the rain for decades.

 

[JessicaTam]

[mod hat]
A reminder that this thread is specifically for pilots to answer questions. Not general discussion.
[/mod hat]

 

[RSD]

As a kid (mid 1970's - early 1980's) in the pre-aerobridge era I remember walking from the terminal across the tarmac to the aircraft steps in Singapore, KL, Auckland, Wellington, Hong Kong (Kai Tak), Papeete, etc.

Walking across to the plane from the terminal was always a delight in Cairo in the early 90's... in the midday sun... in the middle of summer!

@jb747 - what things did we get wrong with the A380? It would be interesting to get some feedback from someone who has obviously used what we created.

 

[jb747]

@jb747 - what things did we get wrong with the A380? It would be interesting to get some feedback from someone who has obviously used what we created.

The 380 is now a relatively old aircraft in terms of systems, but overall it was well thought out. In particular the way the flight controls worked with a mix of hydraulic and electric actuation was very impressive (and safe). Some systems that should have been simple (like the chillers) seemed to be designed in hell, but I expect that was a lesson learnt.

One thing that always bugged me (and I expect it's across all Airbus) is the way the flight controls behaved in the flare. At 100' it would switch to 'flare law', which was basically direct law in pitch, but it remained in normal law in roll. The upshot of that was that whilst you could get nice linear pitch control, making small roll corrections was difficult, with it seemingly giving a minimum change of about 2º. I'd have preferred it to be in direct for roll too. This is relevant to landings in crosswinds, especially.

 

[AviatorInsight]

One thing that always bugged me (and I expect it's across all Airbus) is the way the flight controls behaved in the flare. At 100' it would switch to 'flare law', which was basically direct law in pitch, but it remained in normal law in roll. The upshot of that was that whilst you could get nice linear pitch control, making small roll corrections was difficult, with it seemingly giving a minimum change of about 2º. I'd have preferred it to be in direct for roll too. This is relevant to landings in crosswinds, especially.

Is this why you see the “stirring of the pot”?

 

[jb747]

Is this why you see the “stirring of the pot”?

No. That's actually something you see on Boeing videos too. Basically putting an input in, but either not giving the aircraft a chance to actually react, or getting out of phase with the required inputs. The longer the wing, the more of an issue the apparent delay in any roll response becomes.

Airbus pilots who stir the stick haven't taken on the concept of moving it, and then letting go. It will make all those little changes necessary to maintain a profile all by itself, if you give it a chance to do so. Stirring the stick means you continually change the targets you're giving the aircraft.

Once you get very low, it stops holding the attitude by itself and starts giving a control response that equates to a non FBW aircraft, which you really need for a manual flare. But, it only changes mode in pitch, which means that any roll inputs are still handled by normal law. That means than any roll of less than 2º will be cancelled out, if you give it the chance to do so. So that little tweak of bank in a crosswind landing has to be greater than 2º. It makes roll inputs feel granular.

 

[747sp]

I was wondering with QF 520 and today's, Nov 8, engine failure is it a real life example of what you practice in the simulator?
I don't know what happen after but would you expect the following planes that were to land or takeoff on the same runway to wait or divert until the runway is checked ?

 

[AviatorInsight]

I was wondering with QF 520 and today's, Nov 8, engine failure is it a real life example of what you practice in the simulator?
I don't know what happen after but would you expect the following planes that were to land or takeoff on the same runway to wait or divert until the runway is checked ?

Yes it is. What happened today was pretty much textbook in the sim. Engine severe damage at V1 and then come back around, and land.

So we waited on the ground for an hour (with engines running) until QF520 landed and the runway was clear. They had to clean up a bit of fuel that had spilled from the engine at the threshold.

Because there was debris on 34R this meant that it was out of action. Then once it was on approach no one else could land after it on 34L, effectively closing the airport. Anyone that didn’t have fuel to hold got diverted.

Good decision by the pilots to use up the whole length of 34L. This meant they could just take their time at the other end, not overheat the brakes on landing and have the company and fire services waiting there.

Although not a good day at Sydney, coming back we had to go into a last minute hold because 34R was again out of action (due to a disabled Falcon 900).

 

[Captain Halliday]

It may be that the camera angles/ depth of field make this look much closer than it is. But even so, wow.

Pilots, if you were in command of the 767, would you have left it this late?

 

[jb747]

Microsoft Flight Simulator.

 

[Captain Halliday]

Yes, my sarcasm at the animation missed the mark. I assumed the MSFS in the title was obvious.

Moreover I should have been clearer in my actual question given it was a real world incident. Sorry.

I’m genuinely curious about the late go around given the 767 crew wasn’t visual.

Do the usual instruments that indicate aircraft nearby work during the approach?

Would the crew have had anything else to go on besides the controller’s calls and seeing the 737 as they became visual?

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Documents/Austin%20Board%20Meeting%20abstract.pdf

US NTSB releases preliminary report on Austin near-miss

The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has issued a preliminary report of a near-miss involving a Fedex Boeing 777-300ER and a Southwest Airlines 737 in Austin last month.

www.flightglobal.com

 

[Brissy1]

Yes, my sarcasm at the animation missed the mark. I assumed the MSFS in the title was obvious.

Moreover I should have been clearer in my actual question given it was a real world incident. Sorry.

I’m genuinely curious about the late go around given the 767 crew wasn’t visual.

Do the usual instruments that indicate aircraft nearby work during the approach?

Would the crew have had anything else to go on besides the controller’s calls and seeing the 737 as they became visual?

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Documents/Austin%20Board%20Meeting%20abstract.pdf

US NTSB releases preliminary report on Austin near-miss

The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has issued a preliminary report of a near-miss involving a Fedex Boeing 777-300ER and a Southwest Airlines 737 in Austin last month.

www.flightglobal.com

I'm not answering your question, but in relation to that report :
- I have no confidence in the accuracy of articles that have obvious errors (ABC news excepted ) "... FedEx jet took off from Memphis that morning at about 06:21 Eastern US time and flew the roughly 486nm (900km) to Memphis".
- in US a clearance to land is to some extent just box ticking and semantics...permission given but the rwy is not clear. In AU clearance will only be given when the rwy is clear (although that raises other issues with late clearances), so the go round might have been initiated earlier.
- "The coughpit-voice recorders were overwritten,” it adds. So many times that has hindered investigations; there is history as to why but needs to be fixed.

 

[jb747]

Yes, my sarcasm at the animation missed the mark. I assumed the MSFS in the title was obvious.

It was, but so many times I've seen those simulations taken as being factual.

I’m genuinely curious about the late go around given the 767 crew wasn’t visual.

If they weren't visual then there is nothing in the coughpit that will have told them where the other aircraft is. And why was an aircraft allowed on to the runway? That will affect the quality of the ILS. You do get the strangest landing clearances in the USA. You're miles from the airport, an entire fleet of aircraft is in front of you, and you're cleared to land. Complete b/s, that happens nowhere else. If a controller in the UK or Oz says you're cleared to land, then the runway is actually clear.

Do the usual instruments that indicate aircraft nearby work during the approach?

TCAS. It probably won't detect the other aircraft until it becomes airborne, and even then you're low, so it's going to have some warnings inhibited.

Would the crew have had anything else to go on besides the controller’s calls and seeing the 737 as they became visual?

Not really.

It was common to get a landing clearance very late. But, you could see the other aircaft, and make your own assessment as to whether he was going to get off the runway, or airborne, in time. If you see someone miss the taxiway that you know they need, then there is no reason to push on. But, if he's almost at the end of the runway, and about to get airborne, then yes, push on. I used 200' as my arbitrary minimum, if I expected him to clear. If I figured he wasn't going to, then no point in not going around immediately.

 

[Saab34]

I note the QF520 continued the runway heading on climb out.

What happens if it’s say Runway 15 Departure from Cairns with a failure after V1? They have that sharp left bank after takeoff to avoid all that terrain ahead.

 

[jb747]

I note the QF520 continued the runway heading on climb out.

What happens if it’s say Runway 15 Departure from Cairns with a failure after V1? They have that sharp left bank after takeoff to avoid all that terrain ahead.

In that case the engine out procedure will include a turn, though not necessarily the one normally done. Clean up/acceleration won't commence until the turn is complete. This sort of turning procedure is common, and the actions you will follow make up part of every take off briefing.

 

[AviatorInsight]

I note the QF520 continued the runway heading on climb out.

What happens if it’s say Runway 15 Departure from Cairns with a failure after V1? They have that sharp left bank after takeoff to avoid all that terrain ahead.

Yep. That’s exactly what we would fly too on 34L/R.

In CNS on 15 it’s, by the departure end of the runway and you make a left turn to track north east and climb away.

The 737 has a restriction that whenever we are below V2+15kts that we need to limit the bank angle to 15°. This means that in the case of the CNS departure, the PF needs to call for the HDG bank limit selector to be set to 15°.

If the engine failure happened at V1, the speed bug will automatically bug to the V2 speed.

The calculations and track are all calculated using this limited bank and it still keeps us well clear, provided you didn’t start the turn too late.

 

[Mule]

I've been flying in and out of Cairns for over 50 years now and I'm pretty sure that we used to occasionally depart from 15 straight down the coastal corridor between the Bellenden Ker and Murray Prior ranges, given the weather conditions being suitable. There is only a slight jink in the valley before the terrain opens up at Cowley. No sharp left turn required and no possible late turn concerns.

As a single aisle passenger I'd prefer that option if the aircraft was experiencing something like what QF520 did last week. Not that my opinion would matter in any way.

On another CNS matter. It's not that long ago that intersection departures used to be the exception. Not any longer. I'm always happier to turn right and back-track a bit for the extra four or five hundred metres.

 

[jb747]

I've been flying in and out of Cairns for over 50 years now and I'm pretty sure that we used to occasionally depart from 15 straight down the coastal corridor between the Bellenden Ker and Murray Prior ranges, given the weather conditions being suitable. There is only a slight jink in the valley before the terrain opens up at Cowley. No sharp left turn required and no possible late turn concerns.

Well, as the Captain, if you feel like declaring a mayday, you can do whatever you like. But, airlines like standardisation. We've practiced these departures and cleanups innumerable times. We know that they work, in all weather conditions. They plug straight in to the procedures we use day in and out.

On another CNS matter. It's not that long ago that intersection departures used to be the exception. Not any longer. I'm always happier to turn right and back-track a bit for the extra four or five hundred metres.

It would probably take more than a paragraph to explain this, but, it mostly comes back to the way that the departure numbers are calculated. After a certain point, adding extra available length does not change the power required, or the Vspeeds. So, even though it seems like wasted runway, it wouldn't actually be of any use.

 

[Captain Halliday]

After a certain point, adding extra available length does not change the power required, or the Vspeeds. So, even though it seems like wasted runway, it wouldn't actually be of any use.

This bit I follow. The theory at least.

But in the case of CNS, wouldn’t taking the full length get you airborne 500m earlier and a little more altitude and terrain clearance if needed? And possibly also get you into the turn slightly sooner?