Ask The Pilot

[RSD]

Looks like FAA have been ordered to de-DEI their systems - NOTAM's

 

[jb747]

Sadly they will still be unreadable gibberish.

 

[RSD]

Sadly they will still be unreadable gibberish.

Like JFK ATC then?

 

[RooFlyer]

@jb747 where an international flight has been without crew during the turn-around (say, at the overseas port), is there any rule at QF or perhaps more generally, that the cabin crew don't go aboard before the flight deck crew? A couple of times recently I've seen the cabin crew arrive, and appear to wait at the gate until at least one of the flight deck members arrive.

Also, is the flight deck door locked during the vacated turn-around time (in which case maintenance bods would have the codes)?

 

[jb747]

@jb747 where an international flight has been without crew during the turn-around (say, at the overseas port), is there any rule at QF or perhaps more generally, that the cabin crew don't go aboard before the flight deck crew? A couple of times recently I've seen the cabin crew arrive, and appear to wait at the gate until at least one of the flight deck members arrive.

The cabin crew don't have to wait for the pilots before they can board. Procedures may well differ with other airlines, and airports, customs, and security can throw their own rules into the mix.

Also, is the flight deck door locked during the vacated turn-around time (in which case maintenance bods would have the codes)?

Probably best if we don't discuss the doors.

 

[RooFlyer]

Probably best if we don't discuss the doors.

Ooops, yes, sorry.

 

[ChrisGibbs]

Just up here between US / Canadian North West and Nort East Coast. Travelled from Seattle - Vancouver - Toronto - NYC. The OAT on the ground varied from -20C - 0C with Snow, Sleet and Rain. Flown on a number of Alaskan Embraer 175L's and the 737 Max's. Apart from the de-icing procedures used in Toronto what other considerations need to be taken into account when taxiing, take-off, landing in these sorts of conditions? For example we were taxiing at Seattle to head to Vancouver and I noticed the engine power seemed to be significantly higher than normal with the brakes being consistently used to slow the aircraft down throughout the taxi. This happened again on landing into Vancouver and then again in Toronto and JFK. Another difference was when we lined up for take-off the power was bought up to high power but we held position for 5-10 seconds before getting underway into the take-off roll.

Are there special procedures used across Boeing / Airbus / Embraer for extreme cold conditions? Are these practiced in the SIM or just something that has to be done when the OAT is below are certain number?

 

[jb747]

Just up here between US / Canadian North West and Nort East Coast. Travelled from Seattle - Vancouver - Toronto - NYC. The OAT on the ground varied from -20C - 0C with Snow, Sleet and Rain. Flown on a number of Alaskan Embraer 175L's and the 737 Max's. Apart from the de-icing procedures used in Toronto what other considerations need to be taken into account when taxiing, take-off, landing in these sorts of conditions? For example we were taxiing at Seattle to head to Vancouver and I noticed the engine power seemed to be significantly higher than normal with the brakes being consistently used to slow the aircraft down throughout the taxi. This happened again on landing into Vancouver and then again in Toronto and JFK. Another difference was when we lined up for take-off the power was bought up to high power but we held position for 5-10 seconds before getting underway into the take-off roll.

Are there special procedures used across Boeing / Airbus / Embraer for extreme cold conditions? Are these practiced in the SIM or just something that has to be done when the OAT is below are certain number?

There are entire chapters in the manuals on cold weather procedures. They are practiced in the sim exercises (predictably in the sessions just prior to northern winter for us). There are limitations on the condition of the runway, allowed contamination on the aircraft, de-icing requirements. When, and how to use the aircraft anti icing system. Take off and landing performance data changes. Taxiing out, the flaps will probably be left retracted until near the runway, and after landing they may not be retracted (all to do with slush in the flap tracks). Engines will require periodic run-ups to a nominated rpm for a set period, for fan ice removal. This is what you would have seen on the runway. You wouldn’t normally do it whilst moving on the taxiway, but will be required every now and then. You should stop for this, though. I can’t give you any of the exact numbers, as I’m not home at the moment, but I’m sure you get the idea.

 

[jb747]

Here's some food for thought.

Last night, a house about a block away burnt down. I just so happens that it's in the field of view of one my cameras. From the first puff of smoke, to the fire brigade having water on the house was an impressive 10 minutes. Nevertheless, it's a complete loss. The cause is believed to have been a battery powered lawn mower, presumably charging in the garage.

It started with quite a loud bang, like a centrefire rifle. Within one minute there was heavy black smoke. At around five minutes large flames could be seen (from the next block). After 10 minutes the garage roof collapsed.

Now, think about these things on aircraft, both as part of the aircraft equipment (787) or as passenger carried devices.

 

[eric2011]

Now, think about these things on aircraft, both as part of the aircraft equipment (787) or as passenger carried devices.

Aren't the batteries in the 787 in a fire proof container. These lithium batteries are quite scary, a fire officer friend says never leave them once they are charged. Always disconnect them after charging

 

[Quickstatus]

It is often not the battery but a dodgy battery management system overcharging the battery

 

[jb747]

Aren't the batteries in the 787 in a fire proof container. These lithium batteries are quite scary, a fire officer friend says never leave them once they are charged. Always disconnect them after charging

I don't know that I'd call it fire proof. Resistant for sure, but that's a stop gap after the original unprotected installation. And the loss of the battery would probably present a number of unknowns. There are other lithium batteries that are smaller, but without the same protection. This wasn't a big battery in comparison. The smoke alone is something I wouldn't want to deal with.

Initial bang. 5 mins. 10 min.

 

[Quickstatus]

Hopefully the residents got out. At least it did not happen when people were sleeping

 

[jpp42]

Now, think about these things on aircraft, both as part of the aircraft equipment (787) or as passenger carried devices.

I have been researching this as I help manage the safety management system on a sailing vessel that travels offshore. We decided to get an F-500 fire extinguisher which if used immediately, should help reduce the risk of thermal runaway in lithium-ion battery fires. We also educated our crew on the importance of using water to fight these fires (either putting the device in water, or spraying with a water fire hose). Some people will shy away from using water, thinking that it's an "electrical" fire, but the risk of shock is low and the risk of death from allowing the fire to continue is much higher, and only water can remove heat and prevent thermal runaway (the F-500 fire extinguisher is water-based with additives).

Still, we have no good solution for the smoke other than ventilation, which is only helpful for very small amounts and can make things worse if/when the fire expands to other materials.

The following document, published by the US FAA, was particularly instructive. I hope something similar is being incorporated into crew training in Australia. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_120-80B.pdf

 

[Ansett]

The battery is contained in an explosion proof enclosure. It is what is referred to as Exd it contains the explosion using what is called a flame path that causes the flame to cool so that there is insufficient energy to create an issue. Whilst it's works there are issues around the correct maintenance and installation. All things being equal it is a valid way of ensuring safety is maintained.

 

[jb747]

I never followed up on anything with the 787, as I felt I was safely ensconced over in the big AB. As I remember it, one the iterations of the design was a box with burn through more or less allowed on the side attached to the outer skin of the aircraft. I guess that would stop it getting into the aircraft, but at the loss of the entire emergency electrical system, and any ramifications that might have. Apparently it was all to save the weight of a RAT, which surely can’t have weighed any more….

 

[ChrisGibbs]

There are entire chapters in the manuals on cold weather procedures. They are practiced in the sim exercises (predictably in the sessions just prior to northern winter for us). There are limitations on the condition of the runway, allowed contamination on the aircraft, de-icing requirements. When, and how to use the aircraft anti icing system. Take off and landing performance data changes. Taxiing out, the flaps will probably be left retracted until near the runway, and after landing they may not be retracted (all to do with slush in the flap tracks). Engines will require periodic run-ups to a nominated rpm for a set period, for fan ice removal. This is what you would have seen on the runway. You wouldn’t normally do it whilst moving on the taxiway, but will be required every now and then. You should stop for this, though. I can’t give you any of the exact numbers, as I’m not home at the moment, but I’m sure you get the idea.

Not sure if this is related. I recall being onboard a QF747-ER at DFW back in August 2012. This was in the day where the 747-ERs did the QF7 SYD-DFW leg then did the return as QF8 DFW-BNE-SYD. The weather in DFW was coughpy with storms rolling through delaying the departure of the flight. After 2-3 hours on the ground letting the storms pass we were about to get underway but after another 45 minutes delay we were offloaded and ended up in hotels overnight in Dallas. We were told this was necessitated by the crew being out of hours if they proceeded with the flight.

On arriving into back into Australia 18hrs+ later the media ran an article saying there was a disagreement between the Captain and one of the SO's surrounding the take-off parameters and whether the runway was contaminated or not. Not sure whether there was any substance to the media report but it definitely was a PITA to overnight in Dallas.

 

[jb747]

On arriving into back into Australia 18hrs+ later the media ran an article saying there was a disagreement between the Captain and one of the SO's surrounding the take-off parameters and whether the runway was contaminated or not. Not sure whether there was any substance to the media report but it definitely was a PITA to overnight in Dallas.

I know of this event, but time has taken the details, if I ever knew them. From what I do remember, the FO failed to step up, and the SO was actually correct. The captain concerned was quite unpleasant.

When I was an SO, I once told a Captain that I thought what he’d briefed was incorrect. He simply pointed out the line in the books that allowed what he wanted to do, but then also added words to the effect of “don’t ever stop trying to call us out - you only have to be right once”. As a Captain, various FOs and SOs corrected the error of my ways. I was always happy to take any help I could get, but sadly that was a lesson lost on some.

Unlike anything to do with the Ethiopian B787 fire (I'm trying to make this relevant to this thread, sorry if it's not Mods) the electrical modifications to the Mercedes were found to be the sole cause of the fire.

I started it because anything to do with these batteries is relevant to flying. I can’t imagine trying to deal with the smoke alone from some of these events, and a sadly large percentage of passengers believe that all rules are there simply to inconvenience them, and have no real basis.

 

[RSD]

I know of this event, but time has taken the details, if I ever knew them. From what I do remember, the FO failed to step up, and the SO was actually correct. The captain concerned was quite unpleasant.

When I was an SO, I once told a Captain that I thought what he’d briefed was incorrect. He simply pointed out the line in the books that allowed what he wanted to do, but then also added words to the effect of “don’t ever stop trying to call us out - you only have to be right once”. As a Captain, various FOs and SOs corrected the error of my ways. I was always happy to take any help I could get, but sadly that was a lesson lost on some.

It sounds like a sensible captain in the DFW situation could have just said "I disagree, but I'm happy to take the more cautious option that you have suggested".

Human factors and team dynamics can have a huge effect on the outcome of any complex operation - even if no unexpected situations or emergencies arise. In technical diving we are more and more applying things learned from aviation - either through studies or incidents etc. Human factors training etc is playing more and more into how we do things, everyone always thought that teams of two were the ideal number, but recently our thinking has changed to teams of four - although there isn't a designated leader etc - it is all input into the plan, agree on the plan, dive the plan.

 

[mjt57]

Now, think about these things on aircraft, both as part of the aircraft equipment (787) or as passenger carried devices.

Yep, it's not as if you can throw the burning objects out the window, eh?

When doing emergency response training many years ago, a favorite was a video of a British football field stadium (Bradford City) going up.

From first smoke to full engulfment was something like 7 minutes.

Hope the folks who lost their home are OK, given the circumstances.