Ask The Pilot

[AVC]

Blackbirds kick butt. I used to have one.

I remember the standing 400m some TV show did with a Lambo vs fighter jet. Naturally the jet lumber off the line and the Lambo took off leaving the fighter way behind. The fighter won it by a nose, but only by using the afterburners during the take off roll.

So based on what JB said, mjt's 'bird should beat any airliner over the quarter mile. Or even the whole mile.

So, also based on what mjt said about 737s, gives rise to a question.

I was flying into Vanuatu on a 737, with an Australian pilot. On final approach he was doing some fairly steep turns to, in his own words, "to avoid some buildups" (clouds). Probably in the order of 30 degrees, at least 6 or 7 turns. So would this be normal? Is there a need to avoid them or was he just having some fun?

 

[jb747]

I remember the standing 400m some TV show did with a Lambo vs fighter jet. Naturally the jet lumber off the line and the Lambo took off leaving the fighter way behind. The fighter won it by a nose, but only by using the afterburners during the take off roll.

Pointless comparisons anyway. Try it with a climb to 20k included.

I was flying into Vanuatu on a 737, with an Australian pilot. On final approach he was doing some fairly steep turns to, in his own words, "to avoid some buildups" (clouds). Probably in the order of 30 degrees, at least 6 or 7 turns. So would this be normal? Is there a need to avoid them or was he just having some fun?

Well, on a visual approach he'd need to avoid all clouds....and it isn't that much fun.

 

[NM]

When outside controlled airspace, are there restrictions on where you can and can't fly an aircraft?

Is it different for fixed wing and rotary aircraft?

Are such rules different in different countries?

The reason I ask is based around my experiences yesterday, flying under a bridge and low through a narrow valley with hills rising high on each side. While I was purely a passenger along for the ride for the bridge "crossing", I had the controls (under guidance obviously) for the valley swoop.

 

[ChrisGibbs]

jb747 - I was on Thursday evenings QF8 744ER service from DFW to SYD via BNE. The nearly 16:00hr flight from DFW to BNE was uneventful arriving 2-3 minutes earlier than scheduled. After just on 1hr on the ground in BNE we re-boarded the aircraft for a 0630am departure. The departure time came and went with the PIC announcing there had been a bird strike on the tail plane (presumably out of DFW or on arrival into BNE) with the damage being within tolerance to continue with the flight to SYD however before we could depart we needed a faxed copy of an Authority to Fly. We eventually departed BNE arriving into SYD about 45 minutes late. A couple of questions for you:

- What sort of damage from a bird strike would be viewed as being safe or unsafe to fly?
- Would the damage be something like an indentation in the surface of the aircraft?
- Could the Authority to Fly be something transmitted via ACARS or as the PIC do you need to physically sight a copy of the document with someone's signature on it?

Thanks in advance.

 

[jb747]

When outside controlled airspace, are there restrictions on where you can and can't fly an aircraft?

There are always restrictions. The most obvious is the minimum height.

Is it different for fixed wing and rotary aircraft?

Have to ask Straitman that one, as he's the helo pilot.

Are such rules different in different countries?

Not all countries, but a large number invent their own rules.

The reason I ask is based around my experiences yesterday, flying under a bridge and low through a narrow valley with hills rising high on each side. While I was purely a passenger along for the ride for the bridge "crossing", I had the controls (under guidance obviously) for the valley swoop.

I can't see how flying under a bridge will ever be legal, especially in a passenger carrying environment.

 

[jb747]

- What sort of damage from a bird strike would be viewed as being safe or unsafe to fly?

A small dent that doesn't impinge upon the underlying structure would be one example.

- Would the damage be something like an indentation in the surface of the aircraft?

Birdstrikes happen very regularly, and generally do nothing other than smear the aircraft with bird remains. Of course, at the other extreme, you have radar domes being smashed, and even major engine damage. The engineers have very comprehensive rules to follow with regard to any damage.

- Could the Authority to Fly be something transmitted via ACARS or as the PIC do you need to physically sight a copy of the document with someone's signature on it?

You need to see it, and have a copy placed within the tech log. An ATP (Authority to Proceed) will generally operate for a very restricted period, mostly just one flight.

 

[NM]

There are always restrictions. The most obvious is the minimum height.

Have to ask Straitman that one, as he's the helo pilot.

Hopefully he can chime in here. It was a helicopter and obviously quite low when flying under a bridge, but also was over water, not land at the time. We crossed an expanse of water at around 1000 feet, and pilot asked me to climb to around 1500 feet as we approached a built-up area so there was "more room for options" in case an emergency "landing" was necessary. But when flying over open country he had me turn to cross some power lines directly over the top of one of the towers (if tower is below you, you know the lines are also below). But obviously when landing the minimum height is going to be zero, and we did land a couple of times - once on a dry creek bed at the bottom of a valley and once at the pilot/owner's ranch. Most of the time over the ranch and surrounding unpopulated area was well below 1000 feet.

Not all countries, but a large number invent their own rules.

I assume you can't do that in a fixed wing aircraft, so wonder what the rule differences may be between fixed wing and helicopter.

I can't see how flying under a bridge will ever be legal, especially in a passenger carrying environment.

I did comment at the time "I am surprised you are allowed to do that". His comment was something like "This is the USA. Its up to me to determine what is safe. I just need to be able to justify why I think it is safe". It was not a commercial or charter operation - perhaps they have restrictions determined by insurance requirements? It was a private flight by a private owner/operator, so not sure if that changes any regulations or restrictions. And we weren't the only helicopter to go through that day - I have no idea of the type of operations of the others. There is 220 feet between the bridge and water below, so its not really a tight squeeze for a helicopter passing under at around 50 knots, but probably not somewhere to thread an A380

Any thoughts from straitman or markis10 from a helicopter pilot or ATC perspective? Is this something that could not be done in Aus due to Aussie regulations?

It certainly was great fun!

 

[jb747]

But obviously when landing the minimum height is going to be zero, and we did land a couple of times - once on a dry creek bed at the bottom of a valley and once at the pilot/owner's ranch. Most of the time over the ranch and surrounding unpopulated area was well below 1000 feet.

Without wanting to go through the FARs to find a reference, I think you'll find that there's wording with regard to obstructions that excludes landings and take offs, for very obvious reasons. But, at the same time, as you're not landing or taking off under a bridge, then you are almost certainly operating within the vertical separation required. So by specifying 500 vertical (or whatever it is for helos), I expect you'll find it works in both directions....both above and below.

I did comment at the time "I am surprised you are allowed to do that". His comment was something like "This is the USA. Its up to me to determine what is safe. I just need to be able to justify why I think it is safe".

That's an interesting interpretation of the FARs.

I know it's the land of the free, etc, but flying under obstructions will eventually end in tears.

 

[NM]

Without wanting to go through the FARs to find a reference, I think you'll find that there's wording with regard to obstructions that excludes landings and take offs, for very obvious reasons. But, at the same time, as you're not landing or taking off under a bridge, then you are almost certainly operating within the vertical separation required. So by specifying 500 vertical (or whatever it is for helos), I expect you'll find it works in both directions....both above and below.

Yep, that is pretty much what I was expecting to be the case, and I was expecting to fly over the bridge at that sort of clearance, which would have been great to do. As you point out, a very interesting interpretation. But obviously not unique to him and no enforcement of minimums. All the flight through controlled airspace and over populated areas was at 1500 feet except during landing and take-off.

Again this probably more directed towards straitman and markis10 (or anyone else qualified to answer) - in Australia, are specific exemptions required for low level helicopter operations such as insecticide spraying, crop dusting, cattle mustering etc? Perhaps even SAR?? These things clearly require operations below 500 feet, but are also specialist operations. Is specific training or certification required?

 

[harvyk]

What is the exact definition of a pax?

Obviously the person sitting in 1A drinking Champagne is a pax, but what about with things such as search and rescue or military operations?

For example, a person on a SAR mission who is actually searching for the target, who whilst may be operating onboard equipment as part of that mission, they have no direct control over the safe operation of the aircraft itself. Would they be considered pax, or would they still be considered crew?

 

[mjt57]

JB, just watched the latest episode, this time, a landing via Essendon.

I'm browsing Google Maps. Am I correct in assuming that you (or rather, the FO) made the right turn roughly over Keilor Park Rec Reserve?

When you lined up the runway I thought to myself, is the aircraft a bit to one side or was it parallelax error from the camera angle. But then you said something about it. Also, was his sink rate too fast as I also heard you say something about "500 fpm" and "600 fpm"? I didn't see him take any obvious corrective action.

 

[markis10]

Again this probably more directed towards straitman and markis10 (or anyone else qualified to answer) - in Australia, are specific exemptions required for low level helicopter operations such as insecticide spraying, crop dusting, cattle mustering etc? Perhaps even SAR?? These things clearly require operations below 500 feet, but are also specialist operations. Is specific training or certification required?

Aircraft doing that sort of work fit in the Airwork category and have special rules, essentially they need to maintain separation visually with no minimum standard. Same goes in busy areas like Sydney Harbour, 0-500ft is Helicopter and Seaplane use east of the harbour bridge in a designated restricted area.

In terms of pilot ratings, in the case of crop dusting etc, you require an agricultural rating which has numerous tests and minimum hour requirements (110 hours of supervised ag flying). There is also a low level rating and sling ratings as well. My first instructor at LTV was an ag pilot, he was good value as we often took off, did a u turn at 500ft to set up for a landing without the need to fly the full circuit (required a very quiet airport as we were doing teardrops at each end, and no wind).

The first helicopter to fly under the Sydney Harbour Bridge was in 1951:


http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/art...ney harbour bridge"&searchLimits=l-decade=195

Polair do it on a regular basis (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-03-29/search-and-rescue-a-police-helicopter-flies-under/2229316)

 

[jb747]

What is the exact definition of a pax?

Obviously the person sitting in 1A drinking Champagne is a pax, but what about with things such as search and rescue or military operations?

For example, a person on a SAR mission who is actually searching for the target, who whilst may be operating onboard equipment as part of that mission, they have no direct control over the safe operation of the aircraft itself. Would they be considered pax, or would they still be considered crew?

I'm not sure that there is an agreed definition, but I would consider a passenger to be anyone who isn't qualified in the emergency procedures of an aircraft, irrespective of whether they are rostered to perform a duty.

So, in your SAR case, if you found your observers at they local pub, they'd be passengers, whilst the ones used by Coastwatch are crew.

Paxing crew are also passengers.

 

[jb747]

JB, just watched the latest episode, this time, a landing via Essendon.

I'm browsing Google Maps. Am I correct in assuming that you (or rather, the FO) made the right turn roughly over Keilor Park Rec Reserve?

When you lined up the runway I thought to myself, is the aircraft a bit to one side or was it parallelax error from the camera angle. But then you said something about it. Also, was his sink rate too fast as I also heard you say something about "500 fpm" and "600 fpm"? I didn't see him take any obvious corrective action.

I don't know the geographical position of the turn as we don't look down to pick the spot.

That particular runway is about 1 degree up hill, so the normal visual cues don't look quite right. Sink rate required is initially about 1200 fpm passing Essendon, dropping back to 700 fpm as you turn to line up. Sink rates are called any time they are too big, or too small...in this case reducing a bit from what was needed. All quite normal. The high initial sink rate is required because the lower limit over Essendon is about 500 feet higher than where we'd be on a normal approach, i.e. it sets you up high.

 

[markis10]

I read landing via Essendon and thought immediately - Garuda

 

[jukebox333]

I read landing via Essendon and thought immediately - Garuda

I read landing and Garuda and immediately thought "Horrie Miller Drive".

 

[horseman]

My mother very recently got home from a trip to italy, she said that at one point during her flight between Rome and hong kong, when most people were sleeping her and her friend looked out the window to see a fighter jet flying close by with them. She looked at the map on the Ife and they were over Afghanistan. Is this normal over afghanistan? or What would this have been about? My guess is an escort over?

Edit: she was flying with emirates

 

[jb747]

My mother very recently got home from a trip to italy, she said that at one point during her flight between Rome and hong kong, when most people were sleeping her and her friend looked out the window to see a fighter jet flying close by with them. She looked T the map on the Ife and they were over Afghanistan. What would this have been about? My guess is an escort over?

In all of the times that I've flown over, I've never seen any military aircraft, other than the occasional transport up in the airways with us. You don't get 'escorts'.

How sure is she that it was actually military? You do see other aircraft travelling along with you.

 

[anat0l]

You do see other aircraft travelling along with you.

Except near airport areas, and possibly when flying on the busiest routes, I thought this would be rather rare, especially in cruise. Mainly because it seems to imply you may be too close to the other aircraft!


Although it's going to always be very speculative until the briefings are finalised, and there are several factors to be considered, can you hypothesise on the flying route for the new A380 SYD-DXB-LHR that is coming next year (subject to approval)? For such a long sector (14 hours or so between SYD and DXB), how will this drastically change (if any) the consideration dynamics related to considering diversion airports for weather/fuel/medical etc. compared to a shorter sector to SIN (followed by a longer one to LHR there after)?


Also, since QF is reconfiguring the A380 to carry more passengers, will this have any significant effect on how you fly the A380?

 

[AVC]

- in Australia, are specific exemptions required for low level helicopter operations such as insecticide spraying, crop dusting, cattle mustering etc? Perhaps even SAR?? These things clearly require operations below 500 feet, but are also specialist operations. Is specific training or certification required?

Our SAR aircraft work under fairly unique guidelines, insofar as if we are doing operations intending to preserve life, almost anything goes. Obviously there are still resricted airspaces, but that generally pertains to airspace that other aircraft frequent. So if the mission requires that we land on top of the Gladesville Bridge, we just alert the Police and tell them that's what we are planning on doing. One thing to be mindful of, is the downwash in residential areas (the AW139 has an MTOW of over 6 tons). Blowing roof tiles off buildings is generally bad for PR

What is the exact definition of a pax?

For example, a person on a SAR mission who is actually searching for the target, who whilst may be operating onboard equipment as part of that mission, they have no direct control over the safe operation of the aircraft itself. Would they be considered pax, or would they still be considered crew?

Most of our SAR aircraft carry 1 pilot, 1 aircrewman, 1 rescue crewman, and 1 doctor. All are considered crew. Apart from the pilot all are trained in hoist operation and "down the wire", if landing in tricky areas, all would be required to be tethered and be sitting in the open doorways to guide the pilot in an "all eyes outside" approach.

I've flown under the Golden Gate Bridge too (the top was fogged in). I was surprised when he did it, as we were definately PAXing on that flight. Talking to the pilots afterwards, they stated they had special permission to do so however.