Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

Is there a particular operational reason why the planners wouldn't have you on the 9 run there and 10 run back or the 1 and then the 2? Or just down to bidding etc?

At the moment there are no trips for Captains or FOs that are built totally as the 1 & 2, or 9 & 10. I think it would have the effect of making the 9/10 trip a day longer (i.e. the tour of duty to/from Dubai is so long that a nights accommodation is required in Melbourne). That would have the flow on of making it more expensive. There may be a saving from the other half, but I presume it isn't enough to offset the cost. I'm sure they would have looked at it.

If they ever decide to have a Melbourne pilot basing, then I'm sure they'd be made that way.

 

[mjt57]

A bit of furore on the flight deck, JB...

Qantas impostor sparks pilot fury

I can understand why you folks would be upset.

 

[petercr]

Interesting that it says

The Qantas A380s had three legitimate pilots on each of the long-haul flights to and from Dubai ​

or are they referring to the third pilot as being part of a relief crew?

EDIT: just read back a page to one of JB's responses... (SO on DXB-LHR legs)​

 

[jb747]

I only know as much about this as you do. I'd have no problem if she wore the uniform but without either the epaulets or the wings. Sim instructors dress like that when they fly (and they're normally retired Captains).

I'd also hope there were actually four legitimate pilots on those sectors....though I've occasionally wondered about my own legitimacy.

 

[mjt57]

JB, just watched Ep1 of Airport Live. I have a ton of questions, but I'll pose just a couple for now.

They towed an A380 to a terminal, discussed the process with the "brake rider". The aircraft looked like it had the name "Bert Hinkley".

Was this the one that you flew in and for which they were going to set up the GoPros? And why was it being towed to a terminal?

I think that I saw two QF A380s sitting on the apron like that.

The brake rider fellow, what quals would he have?

Finally, they chatted with a BA captain. His stripes were silver. QF pilots have gold ones. What's the diff, if any?

Thanks.

 

[Must...Fly!]

For clarification to the question, the 380 was -OQJ "Bert Hinkler" (you can read about Bert here: Bert Hinkler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

[fairbasa]

Apologies if this has come up already:

I was on QF35 on June 3. We sat at the gate for about 3 hours whilst the engineers were checking fuel levels or something. The captain explained that they relied upon a few different sources for measuring how much fuel was actually loaded on the plane and there was a 5% tolerance between them, in this case we were out of tolerance so they had to manually check everything.

Can you please clarify this a bit for me?

Thanks JB

 

[petercr]

And why was it being towed to a terminal?

I think that I saw two QF A380s sitting on the apron like that.

Thanks.

Might have to do with the flights arriving at LHR early in the morning and then departing in the evening ... they can't just leave them sitting at the gates so they get towed to/from a holding area...

(QFA1 arrives from DXB approx 6:30am, QFA2 departs to DXB approx 9:30pm, QFA9 arrive approx 5:30am, departs approx 10:30pm)

 

[jb747]

JB, just watched Ep1 of Airport Live. I have a ton of questions, but I'll pose just a couple for now.

They towed an A380 to a terminal, discussed the process with the "brake rider". The aircraft looked like it had the name "Bert Hinkley".

Was this the one that you flew in and for which they were going to set up the GoPros? And why was it being towed to a terminal?

I think that I saw two QF A380s sitting on the apron like that.

The aircraft aren't left at the gates all day. They'd run out of gates if that were the case. They're towed to away early in the day, and engineering carry out any work that needs to be done whilst parked at the remote bays. They normally get back to the gate about 2 hours prior to departure.

J was the aircraft I was was filmed in, but I don't know whether the 'brake' rider stuff was shot on the same day or not. It wasn't all 'live'.

The brake rider fellow, what quals would he have?

As far as I know, they are engineers.

Finally, they chatted with a BA captain. His stripes were silver. QF pilots have gold ones. What's the diff, if any?

Fashion...

 

[jb747]

I was on QF35 on June 3. We sat at the gate for about 3 hours whilst the engineers were checking fuel levels or something. The captain explained that they relied upon a few different sources for measuring how much fuel was actually loaded on the plane and there was a 5% tolerance between them, in this case we were out of tolerance so they had to manually check everything.

Normally the fuel loading is checked by adding the fuel loaded to the fuel on board at the end of the last flight. That is then compared to the gauge indications. There's a graph that shows the allowed variation, and it isn't a fixed percentage. Sometimes a difference might exist, that is outside of the limits, but, if it corresponds to confirmed APU running time, it may be allowed.

If it's outside of the limits, or some part of the measuring system is u/s, then a 'stick check' will need to be done. This will involve actually measuring the amount of fuel at numerous measurement points on the tanks, and then matching that up to the gauge readings. I don't know the exact number of points but there are quite a few, so whilst 3 hours seems long, it doesn't totally surprise me.

Once under way, we'll compare the start fuel - fuel burned, to the totaliser figures. Common sense says the lowest is normally the one you accept, but sometimes the loss of a component might force you to go to one or the other (loss of a sensor in a tank, or perhaps loss of a flow meter sensor).

 

[fairbasa]

Normally the fuel loading is checked by adding the fuel loaded to the fuel on board at the end of the last flight. That is then compared to the gauge indications. There's a graph that shows the allowed variation, and it isn't a fixed percentage. Sometimes a difference might exist, that is outside of the limits, but, if it corresponds to confirmed APU running time, it may be allowed.

If it's outside of the limits, or some part of the measuring system is u/s, then a 'stick check' will need to be done. This will involve actually measuring the amount of fuel at numerous measurement points on the tanks, and then matching that up to the gauge readings. I don't know the exact number of points but there are quite a few, so whilst 3 hours seems long, it doesn't totally surprise me.

Once under way, we'll compare the start fuel - fuel burned, to the totaliser figures. Common sense says the lowest is normally the one you accept, but sometimes the loss of a component might force you to go to one or the other (loss of a sensor in a tank, or perhaps loss of a flow meter sensor).

Ah ok, thanks for clearing it up. Makes sense.

The captain mentioned they were manually checking the tanks but that was only after maybe 1hr of delay. Later on he then mentioned they had to transfer fuel from inner tanks to the wing tanks or something and then drained and re-fueled.

 

[Flying Fox]

I've been reading recently about aircraft being fitted with electric motors in the front wheels (IIRC) to taxi aircraft instead of engines.

I'm assuming that the electric motors would be powered from electricity generated by the engines (whether at idle or under load). How much fuel would this save?

 

[harvyk]

I've been reading recently about aircraft being fitted with electric motors in the front wheels (IIRC) to taxi aircraft instead of engines.

I'm assuming that the electric motors would be powered from electricity generated by the engines (whether at idle or under load). How much fuel would this save?

You'd need something pretty big and beefy to be able to even move an aircraft using an electric motor, and me thinks that any fuel savings would be lost transporting something so heavy on the aircraft.
Have you got a link to the article or where you read this?

 

[Flying Fox]

You'd need something pretty big and beefy to be able to even move an aircraft using an electric motor, and me thinks that any fuel savings would be lost transporting something so heavy on the aircraft.
Have you got a link to the article or where you read this?

Yes I have similar thoughts to you about power & capability etc.

Article below as requested. Pretty interesting in my mind.

BBC News - Paris Air Show: Aircraft tech that works best on the ground

 

[mjt57]

Yes I have similar thoughts to you about power & capability etc.

Yeah, such as, what powers the electrical system whilst this taxying equipment gets its power from the electrical system???

Maybe JB knows. But would it be relevant to A380s and other widebody heavy aircraft, which as the article says, are in the air longer with fewer "rotations"?

 

[harvyk]

Yeah, such as, what powers the electrical system whilst this taxying equipment gets its power from the electrical system???

Maybe JB knows. But would it be relevant to A380s and other widebody heavy aircraft, which as the article says, are in the air longer with fewer "rotations"?

Whilst I feel a moving posts to new threads and a reminder about the purpose of ask the pilot coming on...
So far only tested on an A320 and not under any load, so that may make a difference. But for short haul aircraft (which are typically lighter than their heavy long haul cousins) where taxi is a big part of their day (again unlike their long haul cousins), I could see an advantage in such a system.

 

[jukebox333]

A hat tip to JB in the QF32 report that was released this week:

"There are several parallels with the Qantas QF32 A380 incident earlier this month and the accident in which a ruptured oxygen bottle forced one of its Boeing 744ER jets to make a forced landing at Manila on July 25, 2008 and which is the subject of a final report by the ATSB this morning.They are the saving of a large number of lives by highly experienced, but undervalued pilots, in an airliner stricken by a massive structural crisis.
But while the A380 crisis was the most serious Qantas incident since the Bangkok crash of 1999, and the trigger is known to have been a design fault in its Rolls-Royce engines, the ATSB finds the Manila incident was a ‘freak accident’ unlikely ever to occur again.

In each aircraft, the airliner suffered significant systems and control damage never anticipated in any emergency scenarios, which the pilots had to identify and respond to out of the blue."

(The emphasis is mine.)Underpaid? Probably! But undervalued? Certainly not by the travelling public.

 

[simongr]

Umm where was the article taken from? It reads like it was an ATSB report but I wouldn't expect such a sensationalist biased anti QF management line to be used by the ATSB.

 

[oz_mark]

Umm where was the article taken from? It reads like it was an ATSB report but I wouldn't expect such a sensationalist biased anti QF management line to be used by the ATSB.

It's from Ben Sandilands - originally here: ATSB report on Qantas Manila oxygen bottle incident has parallels with QF32 A380 accident | Plane Talking

 

[simongr]

That explains the hyperbole, bias and poor reporting then.