Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

does the A380 have a door challenge procedure?

if it is possible to leave a door armed on arrival, is it also possible for a door to remain disarmed after departure? (assuming it is functioning normally and supposed to be armed)

The procedures are more or less the same as any other airliner, but with the additional safeguard that the coughpit crew can see, and do use, the arming status of the doors. For instance, when parking, the seat belt sign is not turned off until we see that all of the doors are disarmed.

 

[jb747]

Experienced a landing at CNS yesterday in a QF B738 that rolled quite a number of times in both directions during the last part of the descent and even as we touched down. Having flown at least 1 to 2 flights weekly on these birds in the last two years, mostly to and from CNS, (still a tiny fraction of all actual flights) I've not experienced a flight with that much rolling going on at landing, (there is ususally a little bit going on). Was wondering if you could, in your wisdom, jb747, shed some light?

Landing between a couple of hills, with any form of crosswind, will often give rise to lots of roll corrections. I expect that you're feeling them, rather than actually seeing roll. Rapid control inputs will give rise to a fair bit of spoiler activity, and that is very noticeable in the cabin. Nothing particularly unusual.

 

[Melburnian1]

The figures in brackets are the 747. The 380 is always worse than the -400, which is okay as long as your pax load is also appreciably larger. I doubt that it's anywhere near as 'green' as claimed by the maker though...unless you happen to paint it that colour.

Interesting point, jb747.

Claims and counter-claims by Airbus, Boeing, Embraer and other aircraft manufacturers are in reality aimed at a very small number of individuals: the Board members, CEOs, accountants, consultants to and other high fliers at airlines. They're not aimed at the public (even those of us who may occasionally read an aviation magazine or contribute to these fora) because we (using the royal 'we') are not decision makers who sign the proverbial cheque. I see that a dispute in the UK was decided against Airbus because it was held that those who read aviation journals are by their very nature skilled professionals who can differentiate between fact and fallacy when it comes to claims such as 'I am greener than you are':

Airbus A380 v Boeing 747-8 Ad Complaint Dismissed by ASA

 

[jb747]

Claims and counter-claims by Airbus, Boeing, Embraer and other aircraft manufacturers are in reality aimed at a very small number of individuals: the Board members, CEOs, accountants, consultants to and other high fliers at airlines. They're not aimed at the public (even those of us who may occasionally read an aviation magazine or contribute to these fora) because we (using the royal 'we') are not decision makers who sign the proverbial cheque. I see that a dispute in the UK was decided against Airbus because it was held that those who read aviation journals are by their very nature skilled professionals who can differentiate between fact and fallacy when it comes to claims such as 'I am greener than you are':

Which goes to show just how misguided a court can be too. In my experience, actual aviation knowledge is confined to quite a small subset of airline staff, and management, in general, have zero idea at all. Perfect fodder for those advertisements.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The procedures are more or less the same as any other airliner, but with the additional safeguard that the coughpit crew can see, and do use, the arming status of the doors. For instance, when parking, the seat belt sign is not turned off until we see that all of the doors are disarmed.

thanks.

so given the additional safeguard, how does a door stay armed? two cabin crew have checked it, it's been through a door challenge, and the flight deck has also confirmed it is disarmed before turning off the seatbelt sign.

i guess the issue is more of one in reverse. is it possible for a door to remain unarmed during departure despite all these checks?

 

[jb747]

so given the additional safeguard, how does a door stay armed? two cabin crew have checked it, it's been through a door challenge, and the flight deck has also confirmed it is disarmed before turning off the seatbelt sign.

i guess the issue is more of one in reverse. is it possible for a door to remain unarmed during departure despite all these checks?

The door issue was on a previous aircraft, in which the status was not displayed in the coughpit.

How is any form of mistake made? People are human. If it is possible to make an error, it will at some times, be make. More than likely many times. In the case of cabin crew, you don't have to look far to find very minimally paid, and very heavily worked cabin crew. Whilst people happily denigrate them as trolley dollies, this is the sort of mistake they'll make after the vast number of hours at work that you'll need when paid $6 per hour. Perhaps I could suggest that the public demand for cheap flights means that they'll get them at the cost of minimal safety margins.

 

[Melburnian1]

jb747, there are plenty of other individuals in society who are paid low wages.

Roadworkers responsible for the safety of their colleagues; garbologists who must carefully position trucks to avoid crushing a colleague (which happened in an inner Melbourne municipality, Stonnington some years ago); kitchenhands and waitresses who may cut up meat, vegetables and fruit that you and I eat - so there's an expectation that they have clean hands, tie their hair back and don't otherwise compromise food safety and bus drivers in rural areas who may have to watch out for trucks while the bus has schoolchildren seated three to seats meant for two adults and who are talking loudly and occasionally fighting down the back of the bus along with assistants in aged care homes who must look after many elderly, no longer ambulant folk.

Given that minimum wage rates apply, I doubt that airline cabin crew are paid '$6 per hour' although I realise that you were probably engaging in a bit of poetic licence to make your point.

The usual response to those who suggest that cabin crew don't normally do a lot is to argue that the cabin crew must be well trained and able to quickly evacuate the aircraft in the event of an emergency. Yet on Western airlines including on QF, on occasion I observe fairly old overweight staff who don't appear to be fast moving, yet who seem to retain their positions because of unionisation and seniority, rather than (say) the airline taking the approach of some Asian airlines who as far as I am aware want younger staff. Why don't Western airlines insist that all their onboard staff (cabin and flight crew alike, but particularly the former) remain at an appropriate level of weight for height, difficult as this is for many as they advance in years, if the evacuation duties are so important to the welfare of paying passengers and other staff?

 

[jb747]

Given that minimum wage rates apply, I doubt that airline cabin crew are paid '$6 per hour' although I realise that you were probably engaging in a bit of poetic licence to make your point.

I wasn't joking about the $6 per hour. Use Asian staff on Australian internal flights, and that's what you can end up with. The point is that the quest of cheap fares has a big downside.

The usual response to those who suggest that cabin crew don't normally do a lot is to argue that the cabin crew must be well trained and able to quickly evacuate the aircraft in the event of an emergency. Yet on Western airlines including on QF, on occasion I observe fairly old overweight staff who don't appear to be fast moving, yet who seem to retain their positions because of unionisation and seniority, rather than (say) the airline taking the approach of some Asian airlines who as far as I am aware want younger staff. Why don't Western airlines insist that all their onboard staff (cabin and flight crew alike, but particularly the former) remain at an appropriate level of weight for height, difficult as this is for many as they advance in years, if the evacuation duties are so important to the welfare of paying passengers and other staff?

The senior flight attendants are, in my experience, a lot more use than the pretty young things. The Asian airline example is an extremely poor one, and not one that should be followed by anyone.

 

[Melburnian1]

The 'Asian airline example' includes airlines such as SQ and CX that are (respectively) regarded by many passengers as the world's best airline (SQ) and which has Australian and UK flight crew along with very well trained cabin crew (CX).

QF may not want to emulate the 'Asian airline example' but this will be to its cost. I was speaking recently to a senior businessman based in SYD, who when I said 'I gave QF about 10 years before it ceases international flights' his response was 'I give them five.'

The airline industry today (with the exception of parts of Africa) is the safest it has ever been yet passenger numbers have increased a lot in the last 20 to 30 years due to cheap fares, increased flight choices, a real rise in incomes and a growing Australian preference for overseas holidays. If QF International wants to ignore this, well fine - but it will go out of business.

It's great that in real terms I can fly to Europe for far less $A than 35 years ago: there's no evidence to suggest that safety has been compromised.

The 'Asian airline example' is an outstanding one that has led to QF being forced to try to meet the competition, not very successfully. You won't find me on a QF flight to MNL if I can help it: I much prefer 'Asia's first', PR, which by the way also has a good safety record and which is now effectively controlled by a respected and large Filipino conglomerate, San Miguel Corporation (manufacturer of the eponymos Pale Pilsen and Pale Pilsen Light that many Australians are growing to enjoy) and which once some years ago owned National Foods in Oz (selling out at a decent profit).

 

[NM]

[Mod Hat]
Just a reminder that this is the "Ask the Pilot" thread and is for asking questions of aviation professionals. If you want to debate/discuss the implications of airline cost management verses safety and other passenger benefits (and I agree that would be a very interesting topic to discuss), then I suggest you start a new thread in the "Open Discussion" forum where the topic can be addressed by all members wishing to contribute their thoughts and opinions.
[/Mod Hat]

 

[andmiz]

Experienced a landing at CNS yesterday in a QF B738 that rolled quite a number of times in both directions during the last part of the descent and even as we touched down. Having flown at least 1 to 2 flights weekly on these birds in the last two years, mostly to and from CNS, (still a tiny fraction of all actual flights) I've not experienced a flight with that much rolling going on at landing, (there is ususally a little bit going on). Was wondering if you could, in your wisdom, jb747, shed some light?

The noise abatement arrival into Cairns involves quite a few turns, follows an arc around the airport via a few waypoints before lining up with the runway at about 2 miles to run. Off the top of my head, about 6 turns within the final 10 minutes of Cairns.

 

[CaviAck]

The noise abatement arrival into Cairns involves quite a few turns, follows an arc around the airport via a few waypoints before lining up with the runway at about 2 miles to run. Off the top of my head, about 6 turns within the final 10 minutes of Cairns.

There's noise abatement at CNS? For what population? -looks at empty fields-

Although it does make for an interesting landing at times.

 

[jb747]

The noise abatement arrival into Cairns involves quite a few turns, follows an arc around the airport via a few waypoints before lining up with the runway at about 2 miles to run. Off the top of my head, about 6 turns within the final 10 minutes of Cairns.

Cairns arrivals are as much about terrain as noise abatement. Nevertheless, there is a 'noise sensitive' area, just to the north of the airfield on the extended centreline. Whilst I appreciate that it must be a lovely place to have built one's house, I suspect that the airport was there first.

A story I heard when I was flying there on the 767 was that the locals wanted a curfew to be instigated. When it was pointed out that the aircraft arrive when they do as a result of departing Japan at the latest possible times prior to the start of their curfew, the response was to suggest that they should hold until a more convenient time..or perhaps go to Brisbane first, and then come back. The actual result of such a curfew would have been the loss of all of the flights...thankfully some level of sense prevailed, although I think it did fall off the Japanese wish list anyway.

 

[medhead]

Cairns arrivals are as much about terrain as noise abatement. Nevertheless, there is a 'noise sensitive' area, just to the north of the airfield on the extended centreline. Whilst I appreciate that it must be a lovely place to have built one's house, I suspect that the airport was there first.

A story I heard when I was flying there on the 767 was that the locals wanted a curfew to be instigated. When it was pointed out that the aircraft arrive when they do as a result of departing Japan at the latest possible times prior to the start of their curfew, the response was to suggest that they should hold until a more convenient time..or perhaps go to Brisbane first, and then come back. The actual result of such a curfew would have been the loss of all of the flights...thankfully some level of sense prevailed, although I think it did fall off the Japanese wish list anyway.

I know people who live in that area. They were certainly there for longer than lengthen runways and such. Then I've also never really heard them complain about aircraft. Certainly it was very cool to visit my friends while K88 was going on.

 

[el_rooto]

Hey JB,

Just a quick question RE Golden Triangle Routes and the 763 and 332, what is the fuel burn difference between them? I remember it being quite similar on the shorter sectors?

Cheers,

 

[jb747]

Just a quick question RE Golden Triangle Routes and the 763 and 332, what is the fuel burn difference between them? I remember it being quite similar on the shorter sectors?

I've never flown the 330, so I can't really say. I'd expect it to be similar, but that's about as close as I can get.

 

[Awesom Andy]

I've never flown the 330, so I can't really say. I'd expect it to be similar, but that's about as close as I can get.

I think we need to be more specific in this question as well. Are we talking about the aircrafts as operated by QF, or in their different configurations? Both types have received updates to improve efficiency - e.g. winglets are now available for the 767, and the A330 has a more efficient wing in recent years, now that it's no longer shared with the out-of-production A340. I would imagine it makes quite a bit of difference when all improvements over the years are added up?

 

[day-heg]

Hey JB,
Just seen this article:
http://avherald.com/h?article=466d11a4&opt=0
Sounds like a busy time on the flight deck with the cracked windscreen, hail etc.

Specifically, I wanted to ask what 'alpha floor protection' is, and why it might have activated. I've never heard the expression before. I know what TOGA is, but TOGA LOCK?

Is it an Airbus thing, or industry wide? Specific to the A320? Does the A380 have it?

Cheers in advance.

 

[ChrisGibbs]

JB747 - Last Sunday I flew on the QF127 SYD-HKG A380 Service. Speaking with the tech crew they said they had a 96hr layover in HKG before taking Thursday's evenings QF128 service back to Sydney. From what I understand the long layover is driven by the mix of 744 / 380 services currently operating the 127/128 flights. At what point (layover wise) is it determined the company would pax the crew back to Sydney rather than have them hang out in HKG?

Typhoon Utor is currently bearing down on the Chinese mainland. This morning the Hong Kong Obversatory issued a Number 8 storm warning with winds reaching 86mph across Lantau island. CX have announced a bunch of cancellations and delays for today with potential for more tomorrow depending on the weather. I see the QF127 744 service is still operating today (14th August) and hopefully the QF127 A380 service will operate tomorrow (15th August) - as I am currently booked on this flight. The question for you is at what point if at all does QF operations look at the conditions and determine that a flight (todays QF127 744 service) would not depart SYD due weather at the destination? If you were PIC would Operations work that decision with you or make the determination by themselves? Alternatively if the flight has departed SYD heading to HKG is the PIC the sole determining factor on whether the flight proceeds to HKG or a suitable alternate or does QF Operations get involved?

Thanks in advance.

 

[jb747]

Just seen this article:

Incident: Air France A320 at Bordeaux on Aug 2nd 2013, aircraft in hailstorm on approach pitches up to 25 degrees nose up, alpha floor protection
Sounds like a busy time on the flight deck with the cracked windscreen, hail etc.

Specifically, I wanted to ask what 'alpha floor protection' is, and why it might have activated. I've never heard the expression before. I know what TOGA is, but TOGA LOCK?

Is it an Airbus thing, or industry wide? Specific to the A320? Does the A380 have it?

This is an interesting event, as there are a couple of different components to it.

Hail cracking a windscreen is the first part, and throws up the question as to why the approach was being flown into the weather anyway.

Alpha floor is max angle of attack, i.e. stall, protection. Basically, in normal law the aircraft will stop any further angle of attack increase, and simultaneously select TO/GA power (irrespective of the thrust lever position). It exists across all of the FBW Airbus aircraft. To get rid of TO/GA lock, you have to disconnect the autothrust, but you can immediately reengage it, and it should go back to normal operation.

I don't really see how they got from a hail event, to an alpha event, followed by what sounds like a pretty uncontrolled climb, so there is much more to this tale. I see that they landed 7 minutes later, so they must have continued the SAME approach. The pitch up/alpha event is almost certainly associated with windshear. So we have hail, windshear, thunderstorms (on the weather). Sounds like a good time to have been holding. I wonder what fuel they landed with, as any of these encounters would normally push you to a holding pattern for a while?