Ask The Pilot

[JohnM]

Canberra rarely posed an issue with traffic, the one exception I had was an F18 departure, the only way I could fit him in was to require a climb to 20000 ft within the confines of CBR airport, the F18 met the requirement.

And I bet the F18 driver had fun accommodating your instruction.

 

[harvyk]

<snip>
Light aircraft people might keep roads or cleared areas in mind,
<snip>

Yes, we sure do (well meant to at least). Whilst I'm still student pilot, the standard pre-takeoff briefing I have with the instructor in the 172 is what we'll do in the event of an engine fire or failure. We talk about what options are available at what point of the takeoff, and that includes the available paddocks at the end of the runway.

My instructor has also put me to the test on this. We were taking off on runway 35 at CBR when without warning he pulled the engine back to idle shortly after we lifted off and said "you've lost your engine, deal with it". Unfortunately landing back on 35 was no longer an option as there was not enough of it left to get the plane down and stopped in time, nor was turning back an option as we were below 1000ft AGL. Whilst we'd discussed what we'd do no more than about 60 seconds earlier, actually realising what was going on (and avoiding the temptation to push on the throttle), picking a field to land in, and getting the plane to best glide speed all within a few seconds was an interesting experience. Of course once I'd gotten the aircraft to best glide and aiming towards a suitable field, the instructor brought the throttle back to climb, and we climbed away.

He'd cleared doing this with ATC before he did this to me, but even then I wasn't expecting it.

 

[jb747]

Yes, we sure do (well meant to at least). Whilst I'm still student pilot, the standard pre-takeoff briefing I have with the instructor in the 172 is what we'll do in the event of an engine fire or failure. We talk about what options are available at what point of the takeoff, and that includes the available paddocks at the end of the runway.

My instructor has also put me to the test on this. We were taking off on runway 35 at CBR when without warning he pulled the engine back to idle shortly after we lifted off and said "you've lost your engine, deal with it". Unfortunately landing back on 35 was no longer an option as there was not enough of it left to get the plane down and stopped in time, nor was turning back an option as we were below 1000ft AGL. Whilst we'd discussed what we'd do no more than about 60 seconds earlier, actually realising what was going on (and avoiding the temptation to push on the throttle), picking a field to land in, and getting the plane to best glide speed all within a few seconds was an interesting experience. Of course once I'd gotten the aircraft to best glide and aiming towards a suitable field, the instructor brought the throttle back to climb, and we climbed away.

He'd cleared doing this with ATC before he did this to me, but even then I wasn't expecting it.

You should do innumerable EFATO exercises during your training. The students at Pt Cook were intimately associated with the adjacent paddocks, as they would see this exercise pretty well every time they went flying. And for the newly arrived instructors, an engine failure as they climbed away from the "student's" EFATO was a nice way to remind them not to let the stud back them into a wall.

As a very rough guide, the 180º arc directly in front was the only place to be looking. Like Italian driving, what's behind you, doesn't matter.

These exercises continue all the way through training, although in the Macchi and A-4 they became a quick attempt at a relight, then eject. Even on my very last A380 sim ride, with only one or two flights left, those damn engines still snuffed themselves. Three engine approaches are a doddle, but two on the same wing is always interesting.

 

[NM]

These exercises continue all the way through training, although in the Macchi and A-4 they became a quick attempt at a relight, then eject. Even on my very last A380 sim ride, with only one or two flights left, those damn engines still snuffed themselves. Three engine approaches are a doddle, but two on the same wing is always interesting.

How much of the "automatics" is still available to you in a 2-engine out scenario on the 380? For example, can you do an overweight autoland with two engines out on the same wing? Or does it revert to an operating law that removes that option and you are going to be bringing it around and back down manually?

 

[jb747]

How much of the "automatics" is still available to you in a 2-engine out scenario on the 380? For example, can you do an overweight autoland with two engines out on the same wing? Or does it revert to an operating law that removes that option and you are going to be bringing it around and back down manually?

Two engines out, on different wings, is easy, with the systems still working fairly normally. And because you don’t have that huge rudder deflection, and its associated drag, there’s a lot more performance available than you might expect. I still wouldn’t take on an overweight landing unless forced to, but you almost certainly could.

On opposite wings though, you’re really marginal for performance once fully configured. Basically, below 1,000’ you’re not even going to consider going around (perhaps higher depending upon hydraulics). The approach is flown with autopilot until about 500’. The laws shouldn’t revert (though they always might depending upon the actual failures). From 500’, you just make sure you’re going to hit the runway. Finesse isn’t going to happen. Once the auto thrust is removed, you’ll slow to the approach speed, which will be slower than the Vmca 2, so DO NOT apply full power. This is not something you’d even consider overweight.

 

[Saab34]

FOs not permitted to taxi and park? Is that a standard policy across the board? I was speaking to a 787 Captain from one Asian based carrier, new bloke in flight ops changed the policy, Captains only.

 

[jb747]

FOs not permitted to taxi and park? Is that a standard policy across the board? I was speaking to a 787 Captain from one Asian based carrier, new bloke in flight ops changed the policy, Captains only.

Varies across airlines and type. I don't think any of the 737s have a tiller on the FO's side. QF's wide bodies all had them on both sides. FO's taxied on their sector, but they're never allowed to park (unless being marshalled out on an apron). Many parking guidance systems are position sensitive, and only correct when used from the left side.

I remember flying with one FO who had come from the 737 to the 380. He couldn't drive worth a damn (and I don't think he flew much better either).

 

[RSD]

I remember flying with one FO who had come from the 737 to the 380. He couldn't drive worth a damn (and I don't think he flew much better either).

Let's hope they didn't promote him!

 

[straitman]

[mod hat] A gentle reminder that the 'Ask the Pilot' thread is for individuals to ask questions of pilots and for pilots (or where appropriate Air Traffic Controllers to answer those questions. It is NOT for general discussion. See post #1 for details. [/mod hat]

 

[Mattg]

I’m often impressed when European pilots make a long, detailed announcement in their own language with lots of factual details and perhaps even a few jokes - and then repeat the same announcement but in English, saying exactly what they’d just said in the other language (even the jokes) without hesitation, difficulty or inaccuracies.

Not sure if the pilots here would be able to answer this, but how do the pilots remember what they just said in the other language when they do the translated version of the announcement? Do they just have good memories? Do they prepare notes about what they’re going to say? Just lots of experience/practice?

Related to this, how do you decide what you’re going to say at all in your announcements before takeoff and at the top of descent? Is it just a formula or do you have the freedom to say whatever you like?

 

[jb747]

I’m often impressed when European pilots make a long, detailed announcement in their own language with lots of factual details and perhaps even a few jokes - and then repeat the same announcement but in English, saying exactly what they’d just said in the other language (even the jokes) without hesitation, difficulty or inaccuracies.

Not sure if the pilots here would be able to answer this, but how do the pilots remember what they just said in the other language when they do the translated version of the announcement? Do they just have good memories? Do they prepare notes about what they’re going to say? Just lots of experience/practice?

Some of us have trouble speaking one language, much less two. Scandinavians, in particular, can be very impressive with their language capability, and I feel dumb in comparison. I have one friend (not a pilot) who is fluent in six!

Related to this, how do you decide what you’re going to say at all in your announcements before takeoff and at the top of descent? Is it just a formula or do you have the freedom to say whatever you like?

You can pretty much pick how long people have been flying by their PAs. In the early days, people will often write down a few quick notes, and also include some stock phrases (that I always hated). Eventually you just treat PAs as talking to someone on the phone, and just tell them whatever you consider pertinent at the time. QF did try at one stage to make the calls standard(ish), and that lasted all of 2 seconds.

 

[jb747]

I'm told that I'm fluent in Swahili after a few beers....

Yes, but after that same few beers, most of us can understand it.

Whilst English is the international aviation language, there's a large degree of variation in just how well people understand it. It's another reason why the standard phrases of ATC are so important.

 

[Quickstatus]

English is the international aviation language

Is there minimum proficiency for pilots in Australia.

For our international medical graduates they need to meet a minimum proficiency

There are several English proficiency tests. Using the IELTS they need overall 7.5 and a minimum 7.0 in listening, reading, writing, speaking. Australian, UK, Canada, NZ, Ireland, South African graduates are exempt from sitting the test. Surprisingly US is not

There are other approved tests but they are harmonised so taking one rather than another is not better or worse.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Is there minimum proficiency for pilots in Australia.

CASA's minimum is 4. If it's a 4 or 5 then it needs to be reassessed every couple of years. Level 6 is the highest (in Aus) and doesn't need to be reassessed if you are this level.

 

[markis10]

Is there minimum proficiency for pilots in Australia.

For our international medical graduates they need to meet a minimum proficiency

There are several English proficiency tests. Using the IELTS they need overall 7.5 and a minimum 7.0 in listening, reading, writing, speaking. Australian, UK, Canada, NZ, Ireland, South African graduates are exempt from sitting the test. Surprisingly US is not

There are other approved tests but they are harmonised so taking one rather than another is not better or worse.

There is English and there is Aviation English, case in point back in the eighties I was in Sydney Tower giving a takeoff clearance to China Air that involved a heading change at 6 DME:
Me “China Air 112, at 6 DME turn left heading 250, clear for take off”
China Air “Clear for Takeoff”
I detected some confusion in the read back
Me “China Air 112, confirm at 6 DME turn left heading 250”
China Air 112 “what’s DME”
Me “China Air 112, do you have DME, distance measuring equipment”
China Air 112 “yes, we have a ruler”
Me “China Air 112, cancel previous clearance, maintain runway heading, clear for takeoff”

In those days crew didn’t speak much English, and often had a third member on the deck translating, and they were not always fluid in aviation English.

Later in my career I had the pleasure of working Bankstown tower where we had a lot of foreign students learning to fly, again you could normally detect an issue in the readback where the message wasn’t clear to the student, even when using standard non localised phraseology.

 

[mjt57]

Yes, but after that same few beers, most of us can understand it.

True.

For me, when I listen to those ATC playbacks on shows like Mentour and others, I often rely on the sub-titles to understand what they're saying.

I don't know how clear they are in the coughpit and you folks wearing the headphones but I'd hope that they are more understandable at your end.

 

[jb747]

How much of the "automatics" is still available to you in a 2-engine out scenario on the 380? For example, can you do an overweight autoland with two engines out on the same wing? Or does it revert to an operating law that removes that option and you are going to be bringing it around and back down manually?

Sorry, I didn’t completely answer your question. As I said, two engines out but symmetrically is a doodle. Everything works, and the performance is surprisingly good. But as soon as it’s on one wing only, the amount of rudder that you need increases drag dramatically, and performance falls off a cliff. Autoland won’t be available at all, with the later stage of any approach being flown without autopilot or auto thrust. Throw overweight into the equation, and you’ll have become a space shuttle pilot….you must land off the approach. At more reasonable weights a go around is possible, but not from below 1,000’. The loss of one of the hydraulic systems will mean that you cannot completely retract the landing gear (wing and body/nose are on different systems).

For me, when I listen to those ATC playbacks on shows like Mentour and others, I often rely on the sub-titles to understand what they're saying.

I don't know how clear they are in the coughpit and you folks wearing the headphones but I'd hope that they are more understandable at your end.

Context always helps. We know what phrases are expected, so as long as they stick to the standard wordings, it’s generally pretty clear. The worst ones that I can recall were the Koreans. Their version of english, and my ears, just weren’t compatible. Actually flying into Seoul you’d be handled by the military controller in some sectors, and they actually had excellent, US accented, English, but the civil controllers were a lot more difficult, so you’d go from easy to hard to understand during the descent.

When we first started flying over Russia, they had translators working with the controllers. Their English was good, but they didn’t necessarily translate into ICAO phrases, which could be confusing. Before the unpleasantness, they’d become pretty decent. Probably the hardest now would be mainland China. In any event, their English is miles better than my Chinese.

We make sure that all of us in the coughpit agree with what is being said, and if there’s the slightest doubt, just ask. With one exception, controllers never mind clarifying or repeating. The exception? Well, the good old USA of course. Whilst they supposedly speak English, their use of standard phrases tends to be overwhelmed by their desire to invent a new term for everything. Plus they’ll do so at a thousand words per minute, and if you dare query them they (well, New York anyway) can become extremely snarky.