Ask The Pilot

[ozkid]

What an amazing thread. Been awfully unproductive in my day job over the past 4-5 days to catch up on 4600 posts, as I have just come into this site.

To reiterate what many has already commented, I would like to thank JB (and the rest of the posters) for what has been a great, humourous, fascinating, mature, and intelligent conversation over the past couple of years. The generosity and insights are a highlight.

Here's my set of (rather broad) questions:
1. From a logistical perspective, would it be better to have a fleet composed of either Boeing or Airbus. Standardise the engines, engineering, parts, training for crew and pilots, etc. Would the cost savings offset potential negatives; eg. if a defect is found in one type, could ground a substantial % of your available aircraft. What other issues would dissuade you from this setup?

2. What are the potential pathways that aircraft (both civilian and military) go through after retirement? I understand they sometimes get sent to a desert boneyard, where they are slowly cannabalised for parts. I thought I saw that our F111 were buried in a secret location? And supposedly the F117 is being mothballed somewhere but apparently still flyable. What are the decision processes that determine where these finally end up?

cheers

 

[jb747]

JB, i have a bit of a random question. Do pilots own their own headsets, or do you use whatever's in the coughpit? Seems like it would be a personal piece of equipment.

In my experience, we just use whatever is provided in the aircraft. Others may operate other ways, but I've never owned an headset...though I do have a helmet.

Do you have a personal preference of what headset you like to use?

One that works....

 

[jb747]

1. From a logistical perspective, would it be better to have a fleet composed of either Boeing or Airbus. Standardise the engines, engineering, parts, training for crew and pilots, etc. Would the cost savings offset potential negatives; eg. if a defect is found in one type, could ground a substantial % of your available aircraft. What other issues would dissuade you from this setup?

I guess having all things the same would keep the logistics easy, and it would work as long as your entire network was on single task. Whilst Airbus love to push the 'standard coughpit' as a supposed positive of their system, I see it as simply locking them into a design from 1985. It was ok then, but nowhere near state of today's art.

You need a critical mass of any given type, but as long as you have that, I don't think it would matter all that much. Having the right tool for the job would be the more important factor.

2. What are the potential pathways that aircraft (both civilian and military) go through after retirement? I understand they sometimes get sent to a desert boneyard, where they are slowly cannabalised for parts. I thought I saw that our F111 were buried in a secret location? And supposedly the F117 is being mothballed somewhere but apparently still flyable. What are the decision processes that determine where these finally end up?

I don't know why the F111s were buried, though I understand that the deal with the later aircraft was that they were to be destroyed when we were finished with them. The boneyards are a mix. Some aircraft go there to be parted out, others go into storage to wait for new owners. Others are broken up, and then the parts carefully laid out so that satellites can record their destruction in accordance with the disarmament agreements. Some aircraft in the 'yards are actually brand new, and either waiting for owners, or part of the reserves.

Have a look here...Home : Pima Air & Space Museum : Tucson, Arizona

 

[JohnPhelan]

I've never owned an headset...though I do have a helmet.

And goggles to go with it??

 

[markis10]

I thought I saw that our F111 were buried in a secret location? And supposedly the F117 is being mothballed somewhere but apparently still flyable. What are the decision processes that determine where these finally end up?

cheers

The location was not secret:

No Cookies | The Courier-Mail


They were buried because it was too expensive to destroy them by dismantling and removing the noxious products, the wing box as made from D6AC Steel which apparently broke the jaws of the cutter that initially was used to try and break them up.

Seven were saved, however the fate of the majority of the fleet was always going to be destruction owing to their nuclear capability, the NATO treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons treaty requiring their destruction as delivery vehicles.

 

[jb747]

And goggles to go with it??

A visor...it's the helmet in my avatar.

Re the nuclear delivery capability of the F111s. Even the lowly A4 could be used for that. The bomb panel settings were E, F, H, G, S....which we remembered as early, fast, hard, granite, special. Proximity, instant, slight delay, long delay, glow in the dark.

There were two toss bombing modes too. One would toss a bomb a few miles, whilst the other threw it vertically (loft) upwards. The idea was to give the aircraft a chance to be elsewhere when the bomb went off. Not much use with conventional bombs. I gave it a go and missed the entire range.....

 

[petercr]

I don't know why the F111s were buried, though I understand that the deal with the later aircraft was that they were to be destroyed when we were finished with them. The boneyards are a mix. Some aircraft go there to be parted out, others go into storage to wait for new owners. Others are broken up, and then the parts carefully laid out so that satellites can record their destruction in accordance with the disarmament agreements. Some aircraft in the 'yards are actually brand new, and either waiting for owners, or part of the reserves.

According the the Courier Mail (is it true or did you read it in the CM), there was about 20-odd of them buried as landfill near Swanbank in a dis-used coal mine and had been GPS-tagged so their exact locations were known. Some more of them had been designated as to be donated for 'gate guard' duty or to museums etc. Between these two methods of disposal, that accounted for all the remaining F111's at time of withdrawal.

Other non-CM article here...


EDIT: slightly beaten by Markis...

 

[knasty]

Yesterday my return flight SYD-OOL on a VA 738 had cruising altitudes of 41,000 and 40,000 feet respectively, which is a bit higher than average. A couple of weeks ago the flight from OOL-SYD had a cruising altitude of 26,000 feet, which is a fair bit lower than average. What would cause the cruising altitude to be 10,000 odd feet lower than normal, and what would the approximate increase in fuel consumption be between a cruise at 26,000 vs say 36,000 or 40,000 feet?

 

[jb747]

Yesterday my return flight SYD-OOL on a VA 738 had cruising altitudes of 41,000 and 40,000 feet respectively, which is a bit higher than average. A couple of weeks ago the flight from OOL-SYD had a cruising altitude of 26,000 feet, which is a fair bit lower than average. What would cause the cruising altitude to be 10,000 odd feet lower than normal, and what would the approximate increase in fuel consumption be between a cruise at 26,000 vs say 36,000 or 40,000 feet?

Wind.

The basic wind over eastern Australia is from roughly the southwest. That's why many flights heading south go at lower levels, and they come back at higher. Going low gets you out of much of the wind, whilst being up high puts you into it. Same deal on the way to Perth. Low on the way over, high coming back.

How much wind? Well, last Monday morning, the wind approaching top of descent into Sydney was over 160 knots...roughly 320 kph. Sometimes the wind is very well defined vertically, and you can get out of much of it by being lower. At other times, the drop off is more gradual, and the benefit, whilst not as great, will still make lower worthwhile.

The optimum flight level varies with the aircraft weight, but assuming optimum was about FL360, the cost of being 10,000 feet low would be in the order of 1-2% per thousand feet. If your groundspeed at the lower level increases by a greater percentage, then lower is worthwhile.

 

[vitagen]

Hi JB. When will you know your Nov flight schedule? Im going LHR-MEL on the 8th Nov. not sure if you have covered this before, do you step out to meet the J/F passengers?

 

[jb747]

Hi JB. When will you know your Nov flight schedule? Im going LHR-MEL on the 8th Nov.

The rosters for September/October have only just come out. November's will be out in 8 weeks.

not sure if you have covered this before, do you step out to meet the J/F passengers?

I normally try to do a run around 1st and have a chat to everyone, and then walk through both business and economy. It varies with the flight and time of day though. So, I'll always go for a wander on the MEL-DXB, DXB-MEL sectors, as there is plenty of time, and a 'heavy' crew. On the London legs, it's the middle of the night, and it's only two man crew, so I basically stay in the office.

 

[Ansett]

Hi JB

Will you be doing QF 9 on the 4th October by any chance? Mrs Ansett and I will be on that flight

 

[jb747]

Will you be doing QF 9 on the 4th October by any chance? Mrs Ansett and I will be on that flight

No 9s at all this roster. Only the 1 north, and the 10 south. Roster is a couple of pages back.

 

[vitagen]

The rosters for September/October have only just come out. November's will be out in 8 weeks.



I normally try to do a run around 1st and have a chat to everyone, and then walk through both business and economy. It varies with the flight and time of day though. So, I'll always go for a wander on the MEL-DXB, DXB-MEL sectors, as there is plenty of time, and a 'heavy' crew. On the London legs, it's the middle of the night, and it's only two man crew, so I basically stay in the office.

Awesome. Fingers crossed you're the driver on QF10. Look forward to meeting you if that's the case.

 

[legroom]

Hi JB

Looking at the plane landing at SYD this morning, it seems - to an untrained person - that planes are landing quite closely to each other.

Assuming the worst happening to the aircraft ahead of you causing the next plane to abort its planned landing, is there sufficient time to react in order to 'go around'?

I am thinking of various tailgate incidents I had over the years, but I am sure you and the ATCs get this drilled into you every day as the plane is far, much far more important than 3-5 car pile up.

Always prepared for an abort on landing even in good weather ?

 

[jb747]

Looking at the plane landing at SYD this morning, it seems - to an untrained person - that planes are landing quite closely to each other.

Assuming the worst happening to the aircraft ahead of you causing the next plane to abort its planned landing, is there sufficient time to react in order to 'go around'?

I am thinking of various tailgate incidents I had over the years, but I am sure you and the ATCs get this drilled into you every day as the plane is far, much far more important than 3-5 car pile up.

There's quite sufficient spacing. It varies with aircraft type, because of wake turbulence issues (i.e. a 737 won't be close behind a 380, but it might be the other way around, but even so, it's measured in miles. We don't land unless the aircraft ahead is clear of the runway, and as they clear, the next aircraft will normally still be about 2 kms away.

Of course, if they go around, it makes it easier for the following aircraft, as they are now out of the way, and not affecting your landing. If you were to both go around, the separation would hold reasonably steady. There's certainly no hurry to accelerate after a go around.

Go arounds are a lot more exciting behind the coughpit door, than they are in front of it.....

Always prepared for an abort on landing even in good weather ?

All landings could be go arounds, and all take offs can end in aborts.

 

[drross]

Thanks jb. Love this forum

 

[Princess Fiona]

Might I suggest that the last couple of pages don't belong in this thread....

Anyway, looking ahead.....

31/8 QF1 SYD-DXB
2/9 QF1 DXB-LHR
5/9 QF10 LHR-DXB
7/9 QF10 DXB-MEL

20/9 QF1 SYD-DXB
22/9 QF1 DXB-LHR
25/9 QF10 LHR-DXB
27/9 QF10 DXB-MEL

7/10 QF1 SYD-DXB
9/10 QF1 DXB-LHR
12/10 QF10 LHR-DXB
14/10 QF10 DXB-MEL

I'm on QF10 27/9
Will be in 11E if my points upgrade doesn't come through.
Would be great to meet you if you get a chance.

 

[gwilli1]

JB,

On Wednesday this week , I was coming home from work when I

witnessed , what i thought was a very close Take off / Landing sequence on 34L in SYD between 2 x EK A380's . EK 412 was over the 34L threshold while EK 415 was taking off still on the runway just passing the old tower . I thought this was cutting very fine to the point I thought EK412 probably should have done a go around.​

There's quite sufficient spacing. It varies with aircraft type, because of wake turbulence issues (i.e. a 737 won't be close behind a 380, but it might be the other way around, but even so, it's measured in miles. We don't land unless the aircraft ahead is clear of the runway, and as they clear, the next aircraft will normally still be about 2 kms away.

Of course, if they go around, it makes it easier for the following aircraft, as they are now out of the way, and not affecting your landing. If you were to both go around, the separation would hold reasonably steady. There's certainly no hurry to accelerate after a go around.

Go arounds are a lot more exciting behind the coughpit door, than they are in front of it.....



All landings could be go arounds, and all take offs can end in aborts.

 

[knasty]

Wind.

JB747 Thanks for your reply on varying altitudes. Do the airlines work out ideal altitude or is this done by ATC?

Next question please...a few flights I've taken have had a Captain in the FO seat. Where there are two Captains on duty which one is the Captain of the flight - is it purely based on seniority? In an Airbus how does a Captain go from being in the left seat with left-handed control to the right seat if required? Does it just come back to you?