Ask The Pilot

[AviatorInsight]

Re: Perth alternates

Hi JB, this is quite topical as I saw that AF76 from LAX to PPT (Tahiti) last Saturday flew towards PPT at 36,000' but then decided to go to RAR about 700 miles away due to bad weather (i.e torrential rain) (www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/af76/#c3ced8a). So my question is if you know that the weather might be horrible in such an isolated place, is it more practical to plan the flight as if the real destination was RAR to begin with or RAR is always a good alternative to PPT and this is business as usual? I'm just wondering if there is a threshold at which the likelihood of PPT being unavailable makes it more convenient to plan RAR as the final destination and add some extra fuel to allow for holding around RAR?

Are you asking if it's more practical to plan LAX-RAR? In a sense no. It is always preferred to land at the intended destination with RAR being the alternate in this case. Again, depending on what the airline's fuel policy is will determine how much extra fuel is carried (being a remote location plus weather holding plus alternate, etc). This doesn't only apply to islands either. Flying a Saab 340 to Broken Hill is also considered 'remote' due to the very limited options of another suitable aerodrome close by.

Of course I imagine another option is not to takeoff from LAX...

Again are you saying to cancel the flight and come back later? In a commercial operation this is never an option unless it has been deemed practically unsafe or there is some major issues with the runway (an example being where substantial cracks were found in the runway) at the destination, or the departure. Given that the flight time is around 8hrs, forecasts can change in that time, the weather may not eventuate, and the B772 is quite capable of carrying the fuel to an alternate if required. They may delay the flight a little bit depending on how bad it was, but this is in the opinion of the flight crew and not so much a flight planning decision.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Re: Perth alternates

I was recently landing into BKK (ex KUL) on MH788 when we had ATC put us in a hold for 2 or 3 loops. We then proceeded to land at which point I was looking out the window and could see Suvarnabhumi under us only thing was we were really high to be landing. At that moment the engines hit full throttle and we climbed up and proceeded a go around. The pilot came on and informed us ATC gave them the wrong vector due to runway change and they decided it wasn't safe to land and go around. My question - does this happen often and make sense? At point of our first landing attempt it was very obvious we were way too high...why wouldn't the pilots pick this up almost right away?

Having never operated into BKK I can only speculate if that happens often enough there, however, ATC are humans too and I have been given contradictory information before. Approach is a very busy time and even though we are given vectors we are ultimately responsible for where we point our aircraft. The pilots may have continued on their flight path assessing the state of the aircraft, checking altitude vs. miles to run to touch down, running checklists, making decisions whether this is a safe approach to continue or not.

It sounds like they hit their 'marker' and from that point deemed it unsafe to continue the approach and gave it away. Good move, as you can see that the second time around the vector to final was from a further distance out.

 

[jb747]

Re: Perth alternates

Jan 14, 2017.

The point where the aircraft is on finals at about 5 miles is crossed in both approaches. In the first he's at about 300 feet higher than in the second. Looking at it, I'd guess that he's been cleared for the ILS, but also not below 2,000' until established on the glide path. That's quite normal. From the aircraft, if it looks like you're being held up high, the very first thing to do is to get rid of some of the kinetic energy. He probably needs to have been doing that aggressively on the first approach...with early selection of the landing gear being the easiest way. Additionally, you can ask for lower, or a slight left turn to intercept further out. Both are common and easy to arrange.ATC look to have cut him in a bit short, but I don't think he's handled it as well as he could.

 

[jb747]

Re: Perth alternates

Hi JB, this is quite topical as I saw that AF76 from LAX to PPT (Tahiti) last Saturday flew towards PPT at 36,000' but then decided to go to RAR about 700 miles away due to bad weather (i.e torrential rain) (www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/af76/#c3ced8a). So my question is if you know that the weather might be horrible in such an isolated place, is it more practical to plan the flight as if the real destination was RAR to begin with or RAR is always a good alternative to PPT and this is business as usual? I'm just wondering if there is a threshold at which the likelihood of PPT being unavailable makes it more convenient to plan RAR as the final destination and add some extra fuel to allow for holding around RAR?

Of course I imagine another option is not to takeoff from LAX...

If there is no way you're going to get in to the destination, and it's as remote as Tahiti, then not going is a viable option. But, to take this decision, you need to know that the weather is going to be as bad as it was, and I don't think this was expected. The 'not go' option is probably more applicable to HKG in the typhoon season.

The only time you'd go to the alternate first, without even a look at the destination is if you simply did not have the fuel. Given the weather, you'd probably want something in the order of 2 attempts, plus perhaps an hour hold, and then the diversion fuel on top of that. Quite a lot.

The decision will vary with every flight. If the weather in Melbourne were atrocious, I would still depart LA, as long as Sydney/Brisbane (and perhaps others) were available. The fix for the passengers from 500 miles away is much easier that 4,000 nm.

 

[Mrmaxwell]

Re: Ask the Pilot

The point where the aircraft is on finals at about 5 miles is crossed in both approaches. In the first he's at about 300 feet higher than in the second. Looking at it, I'd guess that he's been cleared for the ILS, but also not below 2,000' until established on the glide path. That's quite normal. From the aircraft, if it looks like you're being held up high, the very first thing to do is to get rid of some of the kinetic energy. He probably needs to have been doing that aggressively on the first approach...with early selection of the landing gear being the easiest way. Additionally, you can ask for lower, or a slight left turn to intercept further out. Both are common and easy to arrange.ATC look to have cut him in a bit short, but I don't think he's handled it as well as he could.

Good to know. I guess the fluff about ATC changing runways and giving them incorrect info was just fluff?

 

[ChrisGibbs]

Re: Ask the Pilot

Had an interesting flight on Wednesday 24/1 QF452 MEL-SYD A330-200 service. QF452 was scheduled for a 1700 departure. Just prior to boarding at 1640 an announcement was made that "due to operational requirements" the flight would be delayed for at least 45 minutes. Soon after another announcement was made that a replacement tech crew had been found and the Captain would join the FO and the departure would only be delayed by 15 minutes. True to their word passengers commenced boarding around 1655 with an 1729 departure and a 25 minute delayed arrival into Sydney at 1850. Just prior to departure the FO advised the original tech crew were travelling together from the city to the airport and were involved in an accident and were pulled from the flight based on medical grounds. The FO said he got a call after his completed his days flying and "turned around" back to the airport to do the flight while the Captain was called out for the flight.

My first question / statement is I hope the tech crew are both OK and back to 100% as soon as practicable. Second question is do the Tech Crew themselves and/or the Airline scrub the crew from the flight based on the scenario provided above? Third question - if you've already done a days flying are you compelled to "turn around" and do another flight and what is the maximum time you have from being called out until you turn up on flight deck? Fourth question - assuming the FO had been on the flight deck for a period of time before the Captain arrived would the FO do most / all of the pre-flight check / procedures and the flight would depart as soon as the Captain arrived or would there be a minimum amount of time for the Captain to be briefed before the flight got underway?

A couple of weeks back I was on QF82 SIN-SYD A330-200. We arrived into Sydney and the CSM advised all passengers to remain seated to allow quarantine and medical personnel to board the flight as there were two passengers and two cabin crew who had fallen ill during the flight. After the passengers and crew were assessed they were escorted off the flight by medical personnel for further tests. The quarantine officials gave the CSM the all clear and passengers were allowed to disembark about 10-15 minutes later than scheduled. The question is at what point do the tech crew make the decision to divert due to incapacity of the crew (either tech or cabin crew)? I presume this would vary based on aircraft type and the nature of the sickness / illness.

Thanks in advance.

 

[jb747]

Re: Ask the Pilot

Second question is do the Tech Crew themselves and/or the Airline scrub the crew from the flight based on the scenario provided above?

Most likely the crew themselves, but it could also be the any of the management Captains or scheduling.

Third question - if you've already done a days flying are you compelled to "turn around" and do another flight and what is the maximum time you have from being called out until you turn up on flight deck?

You've done your work for the day. Nothing compels you to even answer the phone. If he's done that, it's been basically a favour. There's no time frame as he isn't on standby.

Fourth question - assuming the FO had been on the flight deck for a period of time before the Captain arrived would the FO do most / all of the pre-flight check / procedures and the flight would depart as soon as the Captain arrived or would there be a minimum amount of time for the Captain to be briefed before the flight got underway?

The FO could do 90% of the internal and all of the external checks. A discussion on the phone would cover the fuel, weather, etc. All that would remain would be for the Captain to make sure he was happy with the FO's preflight, a quick briefing, and go. 15 minutes perhaps.

The question is at what point do the tech crew make the decision to divert due to incapacity of the crew (either tech or cabin crew)? I presume this would vary based on aircraft type and the nature of the sickness / illness.

Crew would be treated in the same way as passengers, in that Medlink would be contacted, and their information used to decide whether a diversion is needed on medical grounds. If one of the tech crew is ill, then an overarching consideration would be the who...and who is left. Flight time limitations may start to enter the equation if you've lost the ability rest the crew, even if the medical situation doesn't demand the diversion. There is no cut and dried answer as to whether it would be best to divert or not.

 

[Quickstatus]

Re: Ask the Pilot

it's been basically a favour
.

is this looked upon favourably by the career progression gatekeepers?

 

[Quickstatus]

Re: Ask the Pilot

Accident: Wings AT72 at Semarang on Dec 25th 2016, runway excursion, main gear collapse

Main landing gear collapse after >5G touchdown. (At the 3rd bounce)

How many G would a hard landing (but safe) be?

 

[N860CR]

Re: Ask the Pilot

is this looked upon favourably by the career progression gatekeepers?

It certainly shouldn't. In practice... who knows

 

[jb747]

Re: Ask the Pilot

is this looked upon favourably by the career progression gatekeepers?

It would be forgotten within 5 minutes.

 

[jb747]

Re: Ask the Pilot

Accident: Wings AT72 at Semarang on Dec 25th 2016, runway excursion, main gear collapse

Main landing gear collapse after >5G touchdown. (At the 3rd bounce)

How many G would a hard landing (but safe) be?

Passengers (and crew) start complaining at about the 1.15 g mark. Around 1.4 is very solid (or just normal in the 767). On the 767 and 747, 1.8 was a heavy landing and the aircraft had to be inspected.

The issue here is the bouncing. Bounced landings have a nasty habit of beginning a cycle of touchdown/bounce with each becoming harder. If you bounce at all you should go around. Most landings that people think of as bounces aren't at all, the aircraft has actually skipped - it's been slightly overrotated, and has climbed again.

Leaving the engines running for the electrical power, as mentioned in the report, is a very poor decision.

 

[Saab34]

Re: Perth alternates

I note this OOL-CBR flight routed via YSSY and I mean directly over it. What would be the reason it didn't fly direct between the two? Bit of a detour and I've seen this with a few others, PER-AKL will break of its direct tracking with AKL fly over Tullamarine then keep going.

 

[N860CR]

Re: Perth alternates

I note this OOL-CBR flight routed via YSSY and I mean directly over it. What would be the reason it didn't fly direct between the two? Bit of a detour and I've seen this with a few others, PER-AKL will break of its direct tracking with AKL fly over Tullamarine then keep going.

View attachment 89645

That's the correct route between OOL (and BNE for that matter) and CBR. There is another route available via mudgee I think. Been a while since I've done one... you would generally be given a shortcut before sydney, but it doesn't always happen

 

[Himeno]

Re: Perth alternates

I note this OOL-CBR flight routed via YSSY and I mean directly over it. What would be the reason it didn't fly direct between the two? Bit of a detour and I've seen this with a few others, PER-AKL will break of its direct tracking with AKL fly over Tullamarine then keep going.

This flight would require a hand off between Brisbane FIR and Melbourne FIR. (Sydney is on the border between the 2 Australian FIRs) Would it be easier for such hand offs to be in set locations?

 

[Orca]

Re: Perth alternates

This flight would require a hand off between Brisbane FIR and Melbourne FIR. (Sydney is on the border between the 2 Australian FIRs) Would it be easier for such hand offs to be in set locations?

Certainly not 'easier' - the system can handle a handoff with relative ease at any point along the FIR boundaries.
As pointed out by N860CR, this is is simply the standard route for OOL-CBR. The main reason being is it suits the general traffic flow

 

[Awesom Andy]

Re: Perth alternates

you would generally be given a shortcut before sydney, but it doesn't always happen

Is that actively offered or would you need to make a request yourself?

 

[jb747]

Re: Perth alternates

Is that actively offered or would you need to make a request yourself?

The prevalence of direct tracking varies with the phase of the moon. Sometimes it's offered, sometimes you ask for it. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. As you never know where the other aircraft are, you can't tell why a given request might not be available. In Europe you rarely track the planned route, whilst in the US, you mostly stick to it.

 

[tuppaware]

Re: Ask the Pilot

Passengers (and crew) start complaining at about the 1.15 g mark. Around 1.4 is very solid (or just normal in the 767). On the 767 and 747, 1.8 was a heavy landing and the aircraft had to be inspected.

Speaking of the 767, did it have better handling of rougher landings ? It seems (as a pax) the 767 always had a very smooth kiss to the ground. Perhaps the domestic pilots operating them were just good at landing the beast ?

 

[jb747]

Re: Ask the Pilot

Speaking of the 767, did it have better handling of rougher landings ? It seems (as a pax) the 767 always had a very smooth kiss to the ground. Perhaps the domestic pilots operating them were just good at landing the beast ?

The 767 was nicknamed 'the dumpster' by the US airline pilots.

When you flew it a lot, you got better at it, but there was always a solid landing just waiting to remind you of your fallibility, or its caprice. When flying the three versions of it (-200 PW, 300 GE, and 300 RR), you needed three quite distinct landing techniques. On my last day of flying it, with almost 8,000 hours....my 300 GE landing was very smooth, and the 200 PW landing was an arrival. No obvious reason....that was just the nature of the beast.

There were various theories as to why it behaved the way it did. Most came back to interaction between the spoilers and landing gear. Note, that if you landed with the spoilers disarmed it was always very smooth...but that's otherwise a very poor technique. The thinking was that if you touched down extremely smoothly on the forward landing gear bogie, if the spoilers rose before the weight was on the aft wheels, it was sit down firmly. Often a landing with a slightly higher sink rate went on better.