Ask The Pilot

[scaredeycat]

My first post. What a great thread! I'm sure that many readers are like myself - little boys who never grew up and still fantasize about life as a pilot.
My question relates to aerial refueling - I'm sure jb747 must have experienced it in his military days. With the high price of jetfuel nowadays and the issue of unplanned pitstops on transoceanic flights, is there any prospect of it ever being used in civil aviation?
Thanks for all the fascinating insights.

 

[dfcatch]

The answer by JB747 is correct, its to allow for more aircraft to be handled in the terminal area with less separation standards.

In terms of an ILS, depending on what type of ILS approach is required, ATC often needs to increase separation on the ground as well, if you look out the window you will often see a taxi way has two holding points, one normal and one marked Cat1 or CatII/III etc, these holding points ensure the aircraft waiting do not impact the accuracy of the ILS in operation and reduce the capacity for the airport to hold departing aircraft, in such cases ATC often invoke start clearances so full control is in place before engines are turning/burning.

Thanks Markis and JB

So it's just a procedural/separation reference as opposed to a landing method?

Does that mean that the pilot can still use the ILS to approach/land (as long as he follows "visual" procedures)?

Thanks for the info guys - interesting.

 

[jb747]

My question relates to aerial refueling - I'm sure jb747 must have experienced it in his military days. With the high price of jetfuel nowadays and the issue of unplanned pitstops on transoceanic flights, is there any prospect of it ever being used in civil aviation?

Yes, I have done it....and no, you won't ever see it in the civilian domain.

 

[Craigie]

JB,

There was a podcast mentioned in this thread a couple of pages back. Fascinating stuff about the QF30 incident. In the interview with one of the passengers, he mentioned that during the controlled rapid descent the aircraft was banked so that pax could only see ocean out one side and sky out the other.

Did I hear that correctly? Was the aircraft banked the whole time during the descent? Can you explain the thoery behind how a rapid descent is executed?

 

[jb747]

There was a podcast mentioned in this thread a couple of pages back. Fascinating stuff about the QF30 incident. In the interview with one of the passengers, he mentioned that during the controlled rapid descent the aircraft was banked so that pax could only see ocean out one side and sky out the other.

Did I hear that correctly? Was the aircraft banked the whole time during the descent?

Memory is funny thing. The attitudes that the aircraft reached were very mild. If I recall correctly, the most nose down was about -3 degrees, and the most bank (due to the event) about 7 degrees. But, there was a turn of about 45 degrees (towards Manila) executed about 2-3 minutes into the descent, and that was at the normal 25 or so degrees, so I guess that's what people remembered.

Time frames are different too. Passengers and cabin crew felt that the descent took 10 to as much as 20 minutes...whereas it actually took about 5. Difference is, of course, that they have basically nothing to do but worry; whereas ahead of the coughpit door it was extremely busy.

Can you explain the thoery behind how a rapid descent is executed?

In theory it's actually a very simple exercise. Pilots put their masks on, select an altitude of lowest safe, FL140, or 10,000 feet (depending upon whether you are over mountains, fuel limited, or unrestricted), push whatever button is necessary to make the autopilot start descending (744 FLCH), and then select full speed brake. It was mostly practiced with the autopilot engaged, because the theory was that if the pilots happened to have a little sleep, the aircraft would then take itself to those altitudes (as long as you'd got things started), and level off. Nobody would die in the few minutes it would take. Practicing in the sim, most exercises were initiated by some form of pressurisation fault (and that's the most likely reason). That means the autopilot will be available, and that the aircraft structure is not damaged, so you can accelerate to max mach/IAS.

In reality, it turned out not to have read the simulator script, and involved an extremely rapid depressurisation (technically not explosive, but 13 seconds for a jumbo isn't bad), structural damage, and major collateral system damage. The autopilot dropped out immediately (that was caused because the right hand aileron cables had been cut). But the same rules still applied. Grab aircraft, stick mask on, select idle/full speed brake, descend. Worry about every else once the descent is under way.

 

[jb747]

One last thing I noticed recently in the us on domestic they provide the crusing altitude of xx_ feet but not in Australia is there any reason as I find that quite interesting.

Both metres and feet are used in various altitude systems around the world. All of western aviation, not just the USA, uses altitudes that are in feet. It's not a case of being behind the times, but the measure itself is a convenient one for our needs. It's much easier to think in mutiples of 1000' than it is in 300m.

The old USSR and China both use metric systems, but not the same ones.

On the flight from Singapore to London, about 2 hours is flown in metric airspace. But, if you fly from HK to London, you switch to metric at about 8000 feet on departure, and don't change back until around Finland.

 

[mannej]

JB, what are your thoughts on Pprune? Is it responsible for some of the stuff that you read in the media?

Another question I have (although it relates more the A330 flights out of Perth). Can the Harold Holt facility cause interference to an aircraft or is it more conspiracy?

 

[jb747]

JB, what are your thoughts on Pprune? Is it responsible for some of the stuff that you read in the media?

Certainly a lot of what appears in the media seems to be pretty much verbatim pprune, but I gather that's happened with some threads on this forum too.

The problem with prune is that it simply is not what its name says it is. Very hard to say just what the percentage of actual pilots is, but a lot seem to have flown nothing more than MS Flight Sim. In the incident with which I'm most familiar, there must have been around 100 pages....of which about 95% were more or less gibberish. And, when someone posted the actual events, very early in the piece too, he was simply disregarded.

Another question I have (although it relates more the A330 flights out of Perth). Can the Harold Holt facility cause interference to an aircraft or is it more conspiracy?

No. I'm pretty sure they know the exact cause, and it was another software glitch. This stuff is every bit as complicated as the operating systems that we're all using, and we know how good they are, even with the vast number of alpha and beta testers that the giants have available to them. Now consider the testing avenues available to Airbus or Boeing (etc).....

 

[mannej]

Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story!

On another note, how did it feel when OJK departed our shores?

 

[jb747]

Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story!

The truth might be a good story...it's just that it never seems to be tried.

On another note, how did it feel when OJK departed our shores?

I'd moved on by then, so I didn't even know until some time after. Last time I flew it was when it was flown from Manila to Avalon (I wasn't the actual captain, just an extra). Think I might have paxed somewhere in it too just prior to its departure.

K was a good aircraft.

 

[docjames]

K was a good aircraft.

Which leads to the question.... which ones arent "good"?

I'm sure they're all safe, but are the idiosyncracies that make some better to fly than others? I'm wondering whether the "Wunala Dreaming" 744 is in that category due to the extra weight of the paint etc?

ISTR from an old thread that you think the 744 that played golf in BKK is also "good"?

 

[jb747]

I'm wondering whether the "Wunala Dreaming" 744 is in that category due to the extra weight of the paint etc?

They all differ by quite a bit in their weight (tonnes, even when supposedly identical), so I don't think a bit of paint would make much difference. Certainly not something that we would notice.

Which leads to the question.... which ones arent "good"?
I'm sure they're all safe, but are the idiosyncracies that make some better to fly than others?

But some aircraft just suck. EAJ was one that I never liked. One of the A4Gs was a real hangar queen, plus it was about 30 knots slower than all of the others...didn't matter how many engine changes it had had.

ISTR from an old thread that you think the 744 that played golf in BKK is also "good"?

H is nice and straight. I don't recall any particular problems with it.

The 'ugly sisters', apart from their pretty well documented maintenance issues, were quite nice to fly. The ER 747s are very nice...and quite noticeably different to the RRs.

The 767s. The GEs are the nicest, followed by the RRs. The 200s were mostly unloved, except for Q, which seemed to think it was a -300.

Control loadings can differ quite a bit across a fleet, and any with heavy controls are never as nice as the light ones. EAJ was always heavy.

 

[rlarosa]

JB747 thanks for all of your input! It's been great reading through this forum.
I'm wondering if you ever flew the old Kai Tak approach at HK?

 

[jb747]

I'm wondering if you ever flew the old Kai Tak approach at HK?

Oh yes. Great fun on a nice day, but a bugger of a place in the typhoon season.

 

[greg-777]

It's effectively holding, but done on the ground instead of in the air.

Mind you, it's better than the departure slots in Europe, where missing your allocated slot can involve a wait measured in hours.

I recall in feb this year I was on a plane a erj from memory holding short of the runway at charlotesville virigina waiting for our arrival slot at altanta. The pilot mentioned it was easier for us to hold here than hold over Atlanta in much busier airspace.

And I also had on of the last flights out of Chicago on 1 feb after a 15 minute de ice we hit the runway and could not see a thing due to the snow and white out, was one of my most uneasy moments flying ever, thinking I've seen to much air crash investigation, considering what I though was an impossible takeoff due to lack of visibility. Just goes to show you like jb747 the professionalism and expertise of pilots and the training they go through. Thnkyou so much for your in sight and especially time jb747.

 

[jb747]

And I also had on of the last flights out of Chicago on 1 feb after a 15 minute de ice we hit the runway and could not see a thing due to the snow and white out, was one of my most uneasy moments flying ever, thinking I've seen to much air crash investigation, considering what I though was an impossible takeoff due to lack of visibility. Just goes to show you like jb747 the professionalism and expertise of pilots and the training they go through.

We spend a very large amount of sim time practicing the low vis stuff. Whilst the landings in low vis are all automatic, we, of course, spend the time practicing the cases when the automatics lose the plot. That side of it is reasonably straight-forward.

Take offs, on the other hand, are always manual. The visibility can be so poor that all you can see are a couple of centreline lights. In itself, not really a big problem. But, we again practice things going awry. Perhaps total loss of vis, in which case the FO, can give some steering commands if needed, because the ILS track bar will be displayed (and he'll be looking for any deviation on it). Engine failures in this case are especially fun, as they will always initially take you a little of centreline, so hanging on to those centreline lights (and listening for any 'steer left/right' commands) becomes doubly important.

 

[Flying Fox]

We spend a very large amount of sim time practicing the low vis stuff. Whilst the landings in low vis are all automatic, we, of course, spend the time practicing the cases when the automatics lose the plot. That side of it is reasonably straight-forward.

Following on from this (pls forgive me if this is a stupid question), does that mean that modern aircraft such as the A380s & B747s etc can land themselves, ie. without a pilot sitting in the chair?

 

[jb747]

Following on from this (pls forgive me if this is a stupid question), does that mean that modern aircraft such as the A380s & B747s etc can land themselves, ie. without a pilot sitting in the chair?

Well, the answer is yes, and no.

Firstly, the capability exists in pretty well all airliners, and has done for decades. The autoland capability is really there for operations into fog, and I think it was originally driven by the UK, with the Trident. It handles those conditions well, but will not handle gusty, windy condtions.

But, with nobody in the chair. Uh...no. Setting up an automatic approach and landing is often harder than just doing it yourself. If we dropped dead in the cruise, even if we had the approach loaded into the FMC, the aircraft would never descend (Airbus), not configure itself (all types), not slow down (all types), crash...(all types).

Autolanding is yet another AID for the pilots...it's not a replacement.

 

[harvyk]

Two questions
What percentage of flights are done as autoland?

and


When you arrive at a destination how much freedom do you then have at that destination? Eg if you had a long enough layover would you be able to hire a car and drive to nearby cities \ towns provided you where back at the airport in time for your next flight?

 

[mannej]

With the topic of Volcanic Ash popping up, how dangerous can it be and how responsible/irresponsible is it to be flying into Volcanic Ash conditions?

I am aware of BA009, was that a one off event, or is it a big possibility if due diligence is not exercised. The Indonesian carriers GA and QZ seemed to fly between AU and DPS whilst the likes of JQ and DJ seemed to cancel services when the issue popped up earlier this year.