Ask The Pilot

[harvyk]

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

But this article is nearly 3 years old, surely there is something a little more upto date on QF32 available...

 

[jb747]

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"?

The power comes from the APU. I'm not sure from the article whether they're talking about having this system used as a replacement for the tugs or for simply saving a bit of fuel whilst moving the aircraft to/from the runways.

I'm sure the costs would never work out on a big aircraft, but it's quite possible with high frequency smaller aircraft. On the other hand, it will have some drawbacks. In particular there are time limits for the engines prior to take off, and after landing. So, whilst it might have some use for departing aircraft, many times arriving aircraft already have to delay shutdown to reach the cool down time limits.

 

[jb747]

But this article is nearly 3 years old, surely there is something a little more upto date on QF32 available...

There is the full ATSB report which was released yesterday. Interesting reading.

The problem with Ben's interpretation is that there is another way of looking at it. Having had some major events, all of which have resulted in complimentary comments from the ATSB (or at least as close as any safety investigator will ever get), you could easily go with Ben's view. Or, you could say that some nasty events were well handled by a largish group of pilots, therefore it's obvious that they could have been handled by any pilot....therefore the cheapest pilots will do.

 

[harvyk]

<snip>Or, you could say that some nasty events were well handled by a largish group of pilots, therefore it's obvious that they could have been handled by any pilot....therefore the cheapest pilots will do.

Yee gods no!!!

If I'm ever on a plane which is unlucky enough to strike trouble, I want the most talented pilot in the world up the front. Last thing I want is some cowboy who knows how to press buttons, but has never really "flown" a plane, and yes, I am happy to pay extra if it means the guy up front actually knows what they are doing when the times get tough.

 

[simongr]

There is the full ATSB report which was released yesterday. Interesting reading.

The problem with Ben's interpretation is that there is another way of looking at it. Having had some major events, all of which have resulted in complimentary comments from the ATSB (or at least as close as any safety investigator will ever get), you could easily go with Ben's view. Or, you could say that some nasty events were well handled by a largish group of pilots, therefore it's obvious that they could have been handled by any pilot....therefore the cheapest pilots will do.

There is a third view - that QF hires good pilots, trains them well, maintains safety standards and that is one of the common links - good pilots and good safety standards.

 

[RooFlyer]

Story on this morning's AM show about American Airlines having gone 'paperless' in the coughpit, using iPads (and inferring Australia to go the same way):

AM - Australian pilots to go paperless 28/06/2013

I think JB has already said that the A380 coughpit is already somewhat iPad driven (with help from the pilots ) - but is it 'paper less' ?

Call me old fashioned, but one thing I think paper manuals have over iPads is that you can have multiple pages open at the same time and jump from one to the other and if you are looking for something, you can use Mk 1 eyeball rather than some CPU figuring out what you really want to see, possibly while there's a bit of pressure on.

Any comments re paperless coughpit, JB? Would you be inclined to 'sneak' one or 2 of the most well thumbed manuals aboard? Are pilots being consulted re proposed changes?

 

[jukebox333]

I have to admit a mea culpa on that one.

The way I scanned through the Plane Talking page, all of the italicised text had come from the ATSB report.

As the posters above have wisely corrected, that is not the source.

 

[jb747]

Story on this morning's AM show about American Airlines having gone 'paperless' in the coughpit, using iPads (and inferring Australia to go the same way):

AM - Australian pilots to go paperless 28/06/2013

I think JB has already said that the A380 coughpit is already somewhat iPad driven (with help from the pilots ) - but is it 'paper less' ?

Call me old fashioned, but one thing I think paper manuals have over iPads is that you can have multiple pages open at the same time and jump from one to the other and if you are looking for something, you can use Mk 1 eyeball rather than some CPU figuring out what you really want to see, possibly while there's a bit of pressure on.

Any comments re paperless coughpit, JB? Would you be inclined to 'sneak' one or 2 of the most well thumbed manuals aboard? Are pilots being consulted re proposed changes?

The A380 was delivered with a laptop driving the outboard screens on both sides of the coughpit. Called the OIT (who knows what it means...Airbus just love acronyms). This is currently our means of accessing the ACARS, and all of the manuals. It also has the Jeppesen charts, but it's an appalling application, that fails at almost all levels. The performance applications work well enough, but they were shown to have a number of issues in QF32 (basically the programmers never considered the concept of so many failures). All of these applications, with the exception of the ACARS are currently in the process of being converted to iPad applications. The only one that is complete now, is the Jeppesen, and it is a vast improvement on the OIT, but even more importantly it's way better than the paper charts too.

QF has it's own app that is being used for the delivery of standing orders, etc. That's had hiccups, but is generally ok. Certainly quite readable. Flight plan delivery has also been happening on the iPads for a few months. Success rate has been steadily improving, and the recent addition of a backup source of the plans will most likely get it close enough to 100%. At the moment the conversation is only one way...we can't order the fuel on the iPad, but I'm sure that's coming. I've done quite a few plans whilst in the cab on the way to the airport.

They'll start removing the paper charts soon. Initially just down to a backup copy, but they'll be totally gone soon enough. There is simply too much data in a full set of Jeppesens to make keeping the physical copy viable. They're very heavy, and very hard to read. At this stage I've not heard anything about the future plans for the OIT, but I'd expect it will end up just being our access to ACARS, and perhaps to the flight manual. Of course, if it goes, then the keyboards could go too, so there's quite a weight and complexity saving to be had.

Overall, the iPads work a treat....

 

[RooFlyer]

Thanks again JB.

I appreciate you haven't driven the little domestic birds since, well, 'ago', but how do you think iPads will marry with the less sophisticated 737 etc systems? Can QF just put their manuals & charts etc on iPads independently of what's built in to the aircraft? I guess they can, because AA have done it and its possibly just a paper-for-screen switch, but your answer on the apps made me wonder.

 

[chrisb]

How important are all those charts? If they all failed in flight (unlikely with separate iPads but possible due to software issues) would it be a serious issue or would you just need to have a bit more of a conversation with ATC to get the info you need?

Would a lack of charts for inflight emergency diversion points cause issues with continuing the flight?

 

[Must...Fly!]

In addition to the above questions, would you still have some paper on hand for any flights you (or other pilots) may do over particularly mountainous areas? (for escape routes in case of engine failure)

 

[blackcat20]

Roster:

12/7 QF9 MEL-DXB
15/7 QF9 DXB-LHR
17/7 QF2 LHR-DXB
19/7 QF2 DXB-SYD

27/7 QF9 MEL-DXB
30/7 QF9 DXB-LHR
01/8 QF2 LHR-DXB
03/8 QF2 DXB-SYD

12/7 QF9 MEL-DXB
15/7 QF9 DXB-LHR
17/7 QF2 LHR-DXB
19/7 QF2 DXB-SYD

The normal provisos apply...no trip is firm until we actually take off....

If you do QF9 on 12/9, I shall be one of your passengers

 

[jb747]

I appreciate you haven't driven the little domestic birds since, well, 'ago', but how do you think iPads will marry with the less sophisticated 737 etc systems? Can QF just put their manuals & charts etc on iPads independently of what's built in to the aircraft? I guess they can, because AA have done it and its possibly just a paper-for-screen switch, but your answer on the apps made me wonder.

I've never driven the little domestic birds... The 767 was mostly a medium international aircraft when I flew it, and I've never flown the 737. I don't think I'd describe the 737-800 as unsophisticated. Just different ....

In any event, the iPads are used like books. They don't integrate with the systems on any installation. If anything, they offer more to the less shiny aircraft.

Most aircraft don't have anything 'built in' per se. They may have laptops for performance calculations, but they're still not integrated to the aircraft. Some of the details of approaches/SIDs etc resides on the FMCs, but that should always be compared to the Jepps before use. Basically it's exactly a paper for iPad switch.

 

[jb747]

How important are all those charts? If they all failed in flight (unlikely with separate iPads but possible due to software issues) would it be a serious issue or would you just need to have a bit more of a conversation with ATC to get the info you need?

Loss of all the iPads would certainly be a bit of a pain, but I'm sure you could get all the data you needed pretty quickly. The FMCs hold virtually everything we need for most operations...so everything is still well duplicated. We also have access to charging points for them, so keeping them charged isn't an issue either. On top of that, most of our personal laptops hold the performance and manuals applications.

Would a lack of charts for inflight emergency diversion points cause issues with continuing the flight?

We don't carry charts for everywhere anyway. We fly past numerous airports that we don't necessarily even know the name of, much less have any details for. The physical size of a library containing every runway long enough to throw a jet onto would be huge...and we'd need a librarian to look after it all. The advent of the iPad will allow the carriage of much more data than we've ever had access to.

Route charts are also a part of the Jepp applications. Setting it up before flight takes a couple of minutes, and the company has reformatted part of our flight plans to allow us to do a simple cut and paste from the flight plan to the Jepp, and it then loads an appropriate overall route. The GPS even gives you a position if you happen to have one turned on. Again way better than the paper charts, as you can expand/contract it as per any iPad image, and far easier to keep track of. The paper charts were an exercise to just find your position on...

 

[jb747]

In addition to the above questions, would you still have some paper on hand for any flights you (or other pilots) may do over particularly mountainous areas? (for escape routes in case of engine failure)

In most cases 'escape routes' aren't necessary. Much more of an issue for the twins than for a quad. We do have to consider escape routes in the event of depressurisation, though now that we're not flying over Afghan airspace that's much simpler too. The company has made up preplanned routes, and they're available as both paper and on the iPad. The booklet is kept within arms reach when in areas of interest, and many people pre-programmed any routes appropriate to them into spare FMC routes.

If you just need a quick safety height off the Jepp charts, that's on the iPad, and it will almost certainly be the page the device is left 'resting' on. Our flight plans also contain some of this data, so you always have enough to get started at your fingertips. BTW, paper flight plans will continue to be used, as we also use them to keep our fuel/timing/ATC log, and they're retained by the company after a flight.

 

[Hvr]

Ok was just looking at the JetStar site and the pre-requistes to be a pilot for them. (No I'm not interested, just bored.)

One thing intrigues me: "Please Note: Glass coughpit <snip> experience preferred."

Huh? Why is that important? Why is it even relevant?

 

[ChrisGibbs]

JB747 - I was on today's QF127 A380 service from SYD-HKG. A couple of questions for you:

- We pushed back and taxi'd out towards Rwy 16R. The taxi was halted for about 10 minutes due to a fault with the Auto Thrust "computer/s". Discussions between the Tech Crew and Engineering eventually fixed the item and away we went. The question is with the A380 are you able to resolve more issues such as this Auto Thrust "on the fly" when compared to say the 744. I remember many years ago on a delayed QF9 744 MEL-SIN-LHR service where Engineering changed the Auto Throttle computer prior to leaving MEL. As it could have limited the fuel / weight on the SIN-LHR sector if not resolved.

- On takeoff in the A380 the power changes appear to come in 3 distinct stages: initial spool up followed by 1st stage of thrust followed about 5 seconds later by a final increment of thrust. Apart from the initial spool up which I would think would be manually controlled by the PIC are the other stages controlled by the Auto Thrust / Throttle computer/s?

- On takeoff from Rwy 16R we took an unusual route. The typical SID would see a right turn of 16R then a track to the Glenfield NDB and a track out over the Richmond NDB. This morning we took off then tracked direct to Wollongong followed by a wide left turn and a track back over the Sydney airport then up to Richmond. Apart from traffic would there have been particular reason for this? Just speculating but could the different departure have been in relation to the Auto Thrust issue and wanting to remain close to YSSY?

Thanks in advance.

 

[jb747]

Ok was just looking at the JetStar site and the pre-requistes to be a pilot for them. (No I'm not interested, just bored.)

One thing intrigues me: "Please Note: Glass coughpit <snip> experience preferred."

Huh? Why is that important? Why is it even relevant?

Does it ask for any flying experience?

 

[jb747]

- We pushed back and taxi'd out towards Rwy 16R. The taxi was halted for about 10 minutes due to a fault with the Auto Thrust "computer/s". Discussions between the Tech Crew and Engineering eventually fixed the item and away we went. The question is with the A380 are you able to resolve more issues such as this Auto Thrust "on the fly" when compared to say the 744. I remember many years ago on a delayed QF9 744 MEL-SIN-LHR service where Engineering changed the Auto Throttle computer prior to leaving MEL. As it could have limited the fuel / weight on the SIN-LHR sector if not resolved.

I don't know what that fault would have been. There are many things that could fail the auto thrust, some of which are no go items (a FADEC for instance). I'm not sure that the A/T would even be capable of giving a fault message just after start, as it hasn't been engaged at that point. In any event, you can go without it, though it's a bit of a PITA. There are some things that we can reset from the coughpit (basically pull the c/b, wait a few seconds and reset), and most things can be cycled (on/off/on) once, and given the computer based nature of the aircraft, that sorts out many of the faults (i.e. they weren't real in the first place).

Overall, I don't think we are capable of resolving more issues than we could in the 744. In fact, some things that were easily sorted out in the Boeing are really painful in the Airbus. Over the time the aircraft has been in service, a lot of the errors that we used to see in the early days have disappeared, mainly as the software has been rewritten to be more tolerant.

- On takeoff in the A380 the power changes appear to come in 3 distinct stages: initial spool up followed by 1st stage of thrust followed about 5 seconds later by a final increment of thrust. Apart from the initial spool up which I would think would be manually controlled by the PIC are the other stages controlled by the Auto Thrust / Throttle computer/s?

During take off, we initially push the thrust levers up to the 25-30% range. The engines are very slow to accelerate from idle, and you'll often have a degree of asymmetric acceleration at this stage, especially if you've used some asymmetric thrust to help with the turn on to the runway. Once the engines have all come up to the same level (within a couple of percent), you then push the levers to either FLEX or TO/GA. The FADECs then take over. They have a couple of limits to obey. The thrust cannot be between 64-72% when the aircraft is below 60 knots, and it must be below 78% at less than 35 knots. You'll only get the 3 stage acceleration if the target power is above 78%.

- On takeoff from Rwy 16R we took an unusual route. The typical SID would see a right turn of 16R then a track to the Glenfield NDB and a track out over the Richmond NDB. This morning we took off then tracked direct to Wollongong followed by a wide left turn and a track back over the Sydney airport then up to Richmond. Apart from traffic would there have been particular reason for this? Just speculating but could the different departure have been in relation to the Auto Thrust issue and wanting to remain close to YSSY?

It sounds like either an ATC issue, or perhaps some weather avoidance. It certainly wouldn't have been anything to do with the auto thrust...the aircraft is either safe to fly or it isn't. You don't need to hang around an airfield.

 

[wafliron]

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.

Apart from it being established that the quote isn't from an ATSB report, I think people (myself included, on first read) may have missed the fact that the blue highlighted text says "airlineR", not "airline".