Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

Hi JB, i'm also a long time lurker, thanks for taking the time to do this.

I'm just wondering, have you ever had to abort a takeoff or landing in the 380? how about in the 767, 747?

No issues near the ground in a 380.

One high speed aborted take off in a 767. A couple of low go arounds in both the 767 and the 747...but generally they're quite low key, so I don't like the use of the word abort. A 50 foot go-around might seem fraught from the cabin, but it's quite straightforward from the coughpit.

Of course, you never know in aviation. The next flight might be interesting....

 

[Bjet]

what type of aircraft will you fly in the near future? You will fly with B787 or A333?

 

[Skyhigh777]

Of course, you never know in aviation. The next flight might be interesting....

Thanks for answering, In that case, I hope your next flight is a very uninteresting one.

 

[legroom]

JB

What would be your advice to a 16 year-old aspiring to be a Qantas captain?

Way too hard, son. Get a different job ?

This is the path.. littered with barriers and pain ?

1/1,000,000 chance for the creme de la creme ?

What would you tell him / her in so many words ?

 

[jb747]

what type of aircraft will you fly in the near future? You will fly with B787 or A333?

Jayco caravan.

Both the 787 and A330 are smaller aircraft, so flying them would effectively be a demotion. And, even if the option were available, I don't have any desire to do so. I'll retire from the 380.

 

[jb747]

What would be your advice to a 16 year-old aspiring to be a Qantas captain?
Way too hard, son. Get a different job ?
This is the path.. littered with barriers and pain ?
1/1,000,000 chance for the creme de la creme ?
What would you tell him / her in so many words ?

This is a question I'm asked a lot of times, and quite honestly I can't really give a satisfactory answer. I can tell you what worked for me, and what I've seen work for others, but that's always a case of looking back at history, and not necessarily a good prediction of what will work in the future.

I always suggest that people interested in flying get themselves a degree in a real subject (i.e. not aviation) such as engineering, that will put bread on the table when the flying doesn't work out.

A very large percentage of the population cannot learn to fly to a reasonable standard. It isn't a case of just working harder....

Most of my friends learnt to fly in the military. Only a tiny percentage of the people who apply are accepted by them, and they're locked in for 10 or so years. It's the best training that money can't buy....

Many have come via GA and flying in the NT. Very few jobs, in lousy conditions with basically no pay. All about getting the hours....and the airlines still may not like you.

Cadetships....there was a time when the airlines would find young, smart, people that they liked the look of, and put them through flying school. Sadly they worked out that it could be a way of making money (or at least of ditching the training costs), so now they find people they like, who happen to have parents with six figure bank accounts and give them a cadetship that they get to pay for. And, at the end, they may, or may not, get a job. And, next year they'll have some new cadets who are willing to actually pay them for the job, so you'll be out, and replaced by the new cash source. Hideously unethical, and unsafe, but that seems to be the way airlines now work.

It's probably fair to say that it isn't the career that it once was.

 

[straitman]

This is a question I'm asked a lot of times, and quite honestly I can't really give a satisfactory answer. I can tell you what worked for me, and what I've seen work for others, but that's always a case of looking back at history, and not necessarily a good prediction of what will work in the future.

I always suggest that people interested in flying get themselves a degree in a real subject (i.e. not aviation) such as engineering, that will put bread on the table when the flying doesn't work out.

A very large percentage of the population cannot learn to fly to a reasonable standard. It isn't a case of just working harder....

Most of my friends learnt to fly in the military. Only a tiny percentage of the people who apply are accepted by them, and they're locked in for 10 or so years. It's the best training that money can't buy....


It's probably fair to say that it isn't the career that it once was.

I fully support everything jb747 has said here.

There is no easy answer nor a right or wrong answer.

From my RAAF pilots course we had 44 people start and 18 graduate. Of those who did not make it it was for a variety of reasons. Some were never going to be up to the standard. Some could make the standard but not attain it quickly enough and the extreme was one who was killed when his Macchi crashed on his first night solo.

Out of the people who started pilots course there were some with previous aviation experience that did not pass as they could not adapt to the military mindset and other with previous experience where the experience helped.

Those that graduated went many different ways. Many have retired, one is a school teacher, some are still flying, one died in a Caribou crash in PNG and another who was a CASA FOI died in a helicopter crash in Queensland.

On graduation one person was shattered when he got posted to helicopters (he wanted to be a fighter pilot) and another when he got posted to DC-3s. The first went on to fly mirages and the second to complete Empire Test Pilot School (ETPS).

We all came from different backgrounds and with different skill sets but nobody that I'm aware of has any regrets as to where they ended up.

 

[legroom]

This is a question I'm asked a lot of times, and quite honestly I can't really give a satisfactory answer. I can tell you what worked for me, and what I've seen work for others, but that's always a case of looking back at history, and not necessarily a good prediction of what will work in the future.

I always suggest that people interested in flying get themselves a degree in a real subject (i.e. not aviation) such as engineering, that will put bread on the table when the flying doesn't work out.

A very large percentage of the population cannot learn to fly to a reasonable standard. It isn't a case of just working harder....

Most of my friends learnt to fly in the military. Only a tiny percentage of the people who apply are accepted by them, and they're locked in for 10 or so years. It's the best training that money can't buy....

Many have come via GA and flying in the NT. Very few jobs, in lousy conditions with basically no pay. All about getting the hours....and the airlines still may not like you.

Cadetships....there was a time when the airlines would find young, smart, people that they liked the look of, and put them through flying school. Sadly they worked out that it could be a way of making money (or at least of ditching the training costs), so now they find people they like, who happen to have parents with six figure bank accounts and give them a cadetship that they get to pay for. And, at the end, they may, or may not, get a job. And, next year they'll have some new cadets who are willing to actually pay them for the job, so you'll be out, and replaced by the new cash source. Hideously unethical, and unsafe, but that seems to be the way airlines now work.

It's probably fair to say that it isn't the career that it once was.

Thank you for taking the time out to share your thoughts.

Much appreciated.

Your comments were full of common sense & wisdom and I am sure any young persons wishing to become a Qantas pilot would be well served by reading them.

It is not easy, nor simple, to reach the pinnacle in any field IMHO.

But your sketches do give a general idea of the difficulties of your profession.

Thanks again.

 

[Skyhigh777]

JB, under any circumstance, is a flight crew able to overrule a captain if they think he/she is acting out of line or jeopardizing the safety of the plane?

The reason I ask is, I was watching an episode of ACI investigation where the crew were getting erroneous stuck gear warnings. Instead of landing, the captain decided to fly a very long holding pattern until he could confirm the gear was in fact down. He totally ignored the FO's warnings about low fuel, until all four engines cut out.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Interesting you mention that SkyHigh777, I was just coming in to start some discussion on an incident which does have that element in it (although that is not what I am querying, as you'll see below).

Quite a while ago I recall a discussion on the sidestick vs yoke debate and the various positives and negatives of each system, along with the pilot in command overtake systems in the event of differing control inputs.

This incident from 2012 provides an interesting argument against sidesticks. Perhaps best here to excuse what seems like some inexperience in terms of hours on type. Report: Easyjet A319 at London on Feb 14th 2012, severe hard touch down

The right seat was occupied by commander (pilot monitoring) and left seat by the captain (pilot under training). Basically both pilots sensed the aircraft was descending too rapidly <50ft then both initiated a go around.

A quote from the article (there is a good graphic with data from the FDR on the site);

The pilot flying momentarily retarded the throttles to idle then pushed them forward to the TOGA detent, at the same time he made a full forward nose down side stick input which was reversed to a full backward nose up within a second. At the same time the commander, pilot monitoring, made a full backward nose up input reaching the mechanical stop within a second. He announced "I have control", the aircraft touched firmly down with all three gear struts simultaneously before lifting off again and climbing out. The captain under training relinquished control after the aircraft began to climb out again and reverted to the role of pilot monitoring while the commander assumed the role of pilot flying.

​

It would appear that the Captain did not process, initially, that he was sitting in the left seat. Thus he pushed forward on the sidestick, and back on the throttle - which, if he was pilot flying in the right seat, would be correct. But obviously he was not. This all happened within 1 second so the error was realised quickly but it happened.

The commander did not activate the sidestick override button so that is his fault. However the more interesting discussion here imo is that of sidestick control itself. Very curious to hear JB's thoughts on this one and if he thinks a similar incident would be likely to occur on a yoke-equipped aircraft.

 

[jb747]

JB, under any circumstance, is a flight crew able to overrule a captain if they think he/she is acting out of line or jeopardizing the safety of the plane?

The reason I ask is, I was watching an episode of ACI investigation where the crew were getting erroneous stuck gear warnings. Instead of landing, the captain decided to fly a very long holding pattern until he could confirm the gear was in fact down. He totally ignored the FO's warnings about low fuel, until all four engines cut out.

Whilst it's something that's discussed in dark corners by the F/Os, I doubt that it's anything that any airline or regulator would codify. The best bet in this sort of case for the F/O to simply make absolutely certain that the captain actually hears, and understands, what he is saying. This really becomes a problem when, for whatever reason, the 'gradient' in the coughpit becomes too steep, for instance a junior pilot flying with a very senior one (the KLM collision for instance), or a very experienced pilot with a very low hour pilot. Some nationalities are more prone to it than others too. Whilst the Australian 'tall poppy' syndrome is generally a bad thing, it works in our favour in aviation, as it tends to mean that junior crew will speak up, and the senior don't feel undermined in listening to them.

I recall a case in Asia (Korea?) in which an A300 ran off a runway. The very experienced foreign captain had a nasty situation reasonably under control, when the F/O decided to interfere...at which point it all turned to custard.

 

[jb747]

Interesting you mention that SkyHigh777, I was just coming in to start some discussion on an incident which does have that element in it (although that is not what I am querying, as you'll see below).

Quite a while ago I recall a discussion on the sidestick vs yoke debate and the various positives and negatives of each system, along with the pilot in command overtake systems in the event of differing control inputs.

This incident from 2012 provides an interesting argument against sidesticks. Perhaps best here to excuse what seems like some inexperience in terms of hours on type. Report: Easyjet A319 at London on Feb 14th 2012, severe hard touch down

The right seat was occupied by commander (pilot monitoring) and left seat by the captain (pilot under training). Basically both pilots sensed the aircraft was descending too rapidly <50ft then both initiated a go around.

A quote from the article (there is a good graphic with data from the FDR on the site);

​

It would appear that the Captain did not process, initially, that he was sitting in the left seat. Thus he pushed forward on the sidestick, and back on the throttle - which, if he was pilot flying in the right seat, would be correct. But obviously he was not. This all happened within 1 second so the error was realised quickly but it happened.

The commander did not activate the sidestick override button so that is his fault. However the more interesting discussion here imo is that of sidestick control itself. Very curious to hear JB's thoughts on this one and if he thinks a similar incident would be likely to occur on a yoke-equipped aircraft.

I think the very low hours on type held by the training captain has a lot to do with this. Trainees can do strange things...that's why they are trainees. The reaction of the company in putting the trainee back to FO is somewhat suss too...how is that supposed to help? It only punishes.

Sidesticks are, in themselves, just fine. My objection to them relates to the fact that they are not interconnected. Whether that would actually make any difference is moot. Heavy landings happen in aircraft with all control systems.

 

[simongr]

This really becomes a problem when, for whatever reason, the 'gradient' in the coughpit becomes too steep, for instance a junior pilot flying with a very senior one (the KLM collision for instance), or a very experienced pilot with a very low hour pilot. Some nationalities are more prone to it than others too. Whilst the Australian 'tall poppy' syndrome is generally a bad thing, it works in our favour in aviation, as it tends to mean that junior crew will speak up, and the senior don't feel undermined in listening to them.

Is that something that is actively managed at QF - putting pilots together where you wont get such a gradient?

 

[Must...Fly!]

I think the very low hours on type held by the training captain has a lot to do with this. Trainees can do strange things...that's why they are trainees. The reaction of the company in putting the trainee back to FO is somewhat suss too...how is that supposed to help? It only punishes.

Sidesticks are, in themselves, just fine. My objection to them relates to the fact that they are not interconnected. Whether that would actually make any difference is moot. Heavy landings happen in aircraft with all control systems.

Thanks for the reply as always jb.

Years ago, I was very surprised when I learnt that the Airbus had a sidestick, I have always pictured a coughpit with the yoke between the legs.

 

[jb747]

Is that something that is actively managed at QF - putting pilots together where you wont get such a gradient?

There's not really any such thing as a low hour FO at QF. Even new FOs have been SOs for quite a while, so they're already indoctrinated into a CRM system that wants people to speak up.

I'd see it as very much an LCC issue, especially as they effectively have zero hour FOs. I'll be very interested to see if it doesn't turn out to be part of the problem with the recent Lion accident at Bali.

The introduction of CRM systems (crew resource management) and training has probably had a greater effect upon safety than any of the hardware introduced in the past couple of decades.

 

[WheelieBagWanderer]

Hi JB,

I'm a new poster on the forum, an aviation fan, and have spent many hours on this thread - and I have learned SO MUCH!
I can't thank you enough for all the time and man-hours you have put into your answers and posting your videos.

I have a few questions which you might be able to answer, and I'm sorry if they've been discussed before in the 400 previous pages!

1. I recently flew SYD-BKK on EK (777) and HKG-SYD on CX (A330). On both flights there was only a Capt and FO. These were all that were announced over the PA system, and I only saw 2 tech-crew at the gate in both cases. How can EK and CX fly long sectors over 9 hours with only 2 tech crew? What happens with rest periods during the flight?

2. With regards to side-sticks on Airbus aircraft: How does it work if you're a Capt and right-handed, or a FO and you're left-handed? I know just using the computer mouse with my "non-dominant" hand just doesn't feel right, so how does it work when in control of a massive piece of metal you're trying to get into the sky or onto the ground?

3. If I can ask you to recall back to your A330 days... when on my CX flights recently, as we taxied I noticed a hydraulic sound periodically. Maybe about every 45 seconds to a minute or so. It seemed to be coming from the landing gear area and sounded like steam-escaping for one second followed by a thump. I've heard this on CX / KA and SQ A330's. Any idea what this would be?

4. When landing at unfamiliar airports do aircraft still use or request "FOLLOW ME" vehicles to get them to the gate?

5. If, for example,2 QF aircraft were crossing The Pacific and reasonably close to each other, do the tech-crew on each respective aircraft talk to each other and have conversations between them, or is radio communication strictly limited to ATC calls/responses and you probably aren't even aware that they're there for the most part?

6. On another flight recently, (TG from BKK to SYD overnight), during the night, somewhere over Borneo at about 37,000 feet I was sitting over the wing and noticed the landing lights come on for a period of time occasionally. This happened 4 or 5 times and when in cloud. They stayed on maybe 1 to 3 minutes each time and then went off. A few minutes later they came on again. What could the crew possibly be looking at 37,000 feet up flying in cloud?!

Thanks in advance for your answers, JB.
I hope I have the pleasure of being on an aircraft you command one day.

 

[flyingfan]

5. If, for example,2 QF aircraft were crossing The Pacific and reasonably close to each other, do the tech-crew on each respective aircraft talk to each other and have conversations between them, or is radio communication strictly limited to ATC calls/responses and you probably aren't even aware that they're there for the most part?

A similar question was asked and answered recently

I've noticed QF107, QF15 and QF93 to LAX (as an example) often tend to fly within close proximity of each other. Would they communicate, even if just to pass the time? Or would there be any other reason for them to communicate?

We virtually never talk to each other. Firstly, even though the timings may have the aircraft arriving at similar times, they are often on quite different routes that can have them thousands of miles apart. Secondly, chatter on the radios is considered very bad manners. Only a couple of frequencies are used for pilot to pilot comms, and any chatter is heard by every aircraft. Chatter on guard (which is indulged in by some) is worse than bad manners.

If I want to pass the time, there are plenty of people in my aircraft that I can talk to.....

 

[jb747]

1. I recently flew SYD-BKK on EK (777) and HKG-SYD on CX (A330). On both flights there was only a Capt and FO. These were all that were announced over the PA system, and I only saw 2 tech-crew at the gate in both cases. How can EK and CX fly long sectors over 9 hours with only 2 tech crew? What happens with rest periods during the flight?

There are differing rules with regard to two man crew operations. QF operate to about 8:30 on long haul two man, and domestically perhaps even more. There is no rest during these flights. Something to think about perhaps.

2. With regards to side-sticks on Airbus aircraft: How does it work if you're a Capt and right-handed, or a FO and you're left-handed? I know just using the computer mouse with my "non-dominant" hand just doesn't feel right, so how does it work when in control of a massive piece of metal you're trying to get into the sky or onto the ground?

You learn to use your other hand.....

3. If I can ask you to recall back to your A330 days... when on my CX flights recently, as we taxied I noticed a hydraulic sound periodically. Maybe about every 45 seconds to a minute or so. It seemed to be coming from the landing gear area and sounded like steam-escaping for one second followed by a thump. I've heard this on CX / KA and SQ A330's. Any idea what this would be?

I never flew the A330. My sequence was B747-200/300 SO then FO, B747-400 FO, B767 Capt, B747-400 Capt, A380 Capt.

4. When landing at unfamiliar airports do aircraft still use or request "FOLLOW ME" vehicles to get them to the gate?

Very rarely. Last time I used one overseas was at Frankfurt, an airport I'm familiar with, but which was quite restrictive with the 380. Actually they were using them at Melbourne recently, when due to works, the 380s were being sent on a route that put them very close to the Virgin terminal.

5. If, for example,2 QF aircraft were crossing The Pacific and reasonably close to each other, do the tech-crew on each respective aircraft talk to each other and have conversations between them, or is radio communication strictly limited to ATC calls/responses and you probably aren't even aware that they're there for the most part?

There is very little chatter between aircraft. Generally it's considered unprofessional. Remember that whatever you say is heard by everyone within a few hundred miles. Over the Pacific, there is very little radio work at all...the data links have mostly taken over.

6. On another flight recently, (TG from BKK to SYD overnight), during the night, somewhere over Borneo at about 37,000 feet I was sitting over the wing and noticed the landing lights come on for a period of time occasionally. This happened 4 or 5 times and when in cloud. They stayed on maybe 1 to 3 minutes each time and then went off. A few minutes later they came on again. What could the crew possibly be looking at 37,000 feet up flying in cloud?!

They were looking at the cloud. It's often quite hard to tell if you're actually in cloud, and you need to know as you may need to turn on the engine anti icing.

 

[WheelieBagWanderer]

Eastflyer, thanks for pointing that out. As mentioned, I'm new here and nowhere near through the whole thread yet - I think I'm still up to "somewhere in 2011" ...

Appreciate it though. Cheers.

 

[jb747]

Got to be careful that I don't contradict myself...the boys will be on to it in a second.