Ask The Pilot

Hi JB. Longtime reader of this thread.
You've made your thoughts on EK clear in past posts, but I still would like to ask you-

As someone who's flown the MEL-DXB sector quite a bit, what would the fatigue situation be like for the guys at the controls, since it's come out that EK will be cutting back from 4 to 3 flight crew members on some long haul sectors incl. SYD/MEL - DXB as of july this year.
Emirates 3 crew long haul destinations this Summer - PPRuNe Forums

My napkin maths tells me that this means pilots would be spending around 10 hours at the controls on a 14 hr sector. Adding in a 24 hr rest before operating a flight back to dxb, would this start to impact on the pilot's awareness and ability to respond in emergencies? I suspect this could lead to more cancelled flights, as you couldn't fly syd/mel - dxb with just two pilots if one were to fall ill while resting in australia?
 
Last edited:
As someone who's flown the MEL-DXB sector quite a bit, what would the fatigue situation be like for the guys at the controls, since it's come out that EK will be cutting back from 4 to 3 flight crew members on some long haul sectors incl. SYD/MEL - DXB as of july this year.

My napkin maths tells me that this means pilots would be spending around 10 hours at the controls on a 14 hr sector. Adding in a 24 hr rest before operating a flight back to dxb, would this start to impact on the pilot's awareness and ability to respond in emergencies? I suspect this could lead to more cancelled flights, as you couldn't fly syd/mel - dxb with just two pilots if one were to fall ill while resting in australia?

The problem with any of this is that it doesn't come back to just how long the sector is. As you've alluded, slip time comes into it. But, perhaps even more importantly, the overall sleep patterns that the roster has thrown up become very controlling. Airlines consider flights in isolation, and never really consider the overall package of flights. From the feedback I've heard, the EK pilots are pretty tired already. This certainly won't help.

I don't know that it makes performance in emergencies that much worse...you tend to be hyped up then anyway. But, it makes dangerous mistakes in normal operations much more likely. I'll pick on EK alone here (but you can insert many other names), but consider the 340 take off event in Melbourne, the events in New York and at Moscow, and perhaps even the failed go around at Dubai. It will be normal events that go badly wrong...things that won't have your guard up.

I expect that making things worse for the pilots because so many are leaving isn't a cure. Nor is their claim that they have many cadets in the system likely to fix things. An almost instant cure for many of their maladies would be to allow those who want to, to commute.
 
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

I was facinated to read the problems with that early 380 flight. Could you please explain the effects of alternate law I, law ll etc. Are these laws related only to AB aircraft or also to Boeing? What I find really scary is that the aircraft auto systems dropped their bundle resulting in manual control being necessary . Can you reboot the systems back to 100% or a "limp home" mode? Has AB fixed the occurrence of this type of problem?
 
I was facinated to read the problems with that early 380 flight.
Whilst an early flight in both the type’s life, and my time on it (about the 3rd or 4th trip after I qualified) it actually behaved exactly as it was designed to.

Could you please explain the effects of alternate law I, law ll etc.

The laws are basically the rules by which the aircraft will fly. Consider them only in manual flight.

In the smartest of modes (normal law), the aircraft has all sorts of protections that defend against quite normal aviation. It can’t be stalled, because it has angle of attack protection. It can’t be oversped to any extent, because it will attempt to pitch up to reduce speed. If you place it in an attitude (say 20º angle of bank), it will stay there. Conversely, if it’s in a constant state, and is disturbed by wake or turbulence, it will correct it by itself. All automatics work (i.e. autopilot and auto thrust).

In alternate law II, the automatics may still work, depending upon the failure. The aircraft behaviour is still quite normal, but most of the protections have gone. You can stall it. Automatic pitch trim, but no roll trim.

Alternate law I generally requires a double failure of some sort. All protections are gone. Autothrust may still work, but no autopilots.

Direct law will require multiple failures, for instance, loss of all three primary flight control computers, or all four generators. No protections. No automatic pitch trim, no roll trim. All control inputs are directly related to stick position, with no computer moderation. In many ways this is simply an electronic version of the way all non FBW aircraft are, all of the time.

There are some other minor laws, which are subsets of these, used for specific purposes. In particular, during take off and landing, pitch law is basically direct, as that most closely emulates the feel of ‘normal’ aircraft, and this washes out over about 100’.

Are these laws related only to AB aircraft or also to Boeing?

There has been more discussion about the Airbus laws over the years, most probably because they have existed for longer than Boeing’s. All FBW aircraft, from an airliner to an F22 have flight control laws, and various reversionary modes. Whilst I’m not familiar with any of the Boeing FBW aircraft, they will have similar laws to the Airbus.

What I find really scary is that the aircraft auto systems dropped their bundle resulting in manual control being necessary.
Bit sad isn’t it, a pilot having to be a pilot. These reversions exist because it is normally much safer to drop the aircraft back into the pilot’s lap than it is to allow the automatics to continue to fly the aircraft using what may be false inputs. You only have to look at QF72 to see what can happen when the automatics make unmoderated, and frankly, stupid, inputs. The problem, of course, is that if you are going to dump anything into the pilot’s lap, it’s probably a good idea to ensure that he actually is a pilot, and not just a systems operator, or keyboard warrior. This sort of thing is why I see the idea of single pilot or zero pilot airliners as a bit of a joke. It will happen eventually, but I expect I’ll long be pushing up daisies when it does.

Can you reboot the systems back to 100% or a "limp home" mode?

In most cases, once a law reversion happens, then that is how it will stay for the rest of the flight. You may be able to restore the systems that caused the failure, but flight control computers are not something to be played with in flight. But, all of these laws are ‘limp home’ in their own right. All that differs is how much work it will be for the pilots in the interim. After my double failure, we flew for 5 or so hours before landing. We were in exactly the same modes as AF447...and they lost control within a minute or two! QF32 was in alternate law I. I’m not sure, but I think QF72 was forced into direct law by the Captain.

Has AB fixed the occurrence of this type of problem?

No. The reversions are themselves protections. This is how it was designed, and it will not change.
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Post

Struggling to use your Frequent Flyer Points?

Frequent Flyer Concierge takes the hard work out of finding award availability and redeeming your frequent flyer or credit card points for flights.

Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, the Frequent Flyer Concierge team at Frequent Flyer Concierge will help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

Hi JB, do you have your new roster? Any flight to LHR?

Well, we had some improvement in that we got away from the situation of the Melbourne people getting 100% of the low value Singapore trips, whilst most of the good LA flights went to Sydney crew. Now we have most of the LA, and about half of the Singapore.

But, no London, and from the sounds of it, very little chance of there ever being any. Without them, the Melbourne base is quite marginal, so it will be interesting to see if it survives. I have found that I can get a London for my last trip if I want, but I'm not sure that the season will make that attractive. TBA on that one.

So, for the next couple of months...
25/05 QF93 Mel-LA
26/06 QF94 LA-Mel

01/06 QF35 Mel-Sin
02/06 QF36 Sin-Mel

08/06 QF35 Mel-Sin
10/06 QF36 Sin-Mel

17/06 QF93 Mel-LA
18/06 QF94 LA-Mel

27/06 QF35 Mel-Sin
28/06 QF36 Sin-Mel

09/07 QF35 Mel-Sin
10/07 QF36 Sin-Mel

15/07 QF93 Mel-LA
16/07 QF94 LA-Mel (to be confirmed, but I'm likely to swap this for the 14th and 15th)

22/07 QF93 Mel-LA
23/07 QF94 LA-Mel
 
After years of missing you by 1 day I will finally get on one of your flight! So should I ask the CSM to let me visit the flightdeck on arrival in SIN? I'll be flying in Y on the upper deck.

Remind me the day before, and then get the cabin crew to pass up a note early in the flight.
 
Thanks for a fantastic reply Jb, I am in awe of your knowledge and your willingness to impart it to us back seat drivers. Just one missing piece of info. What is the aircraft situation when in Law I? The point you make about the difference between a pilot and a button jockey is well taken on board. I seem to remember an Air France flight Rio to Paris that was caught in a storm. The flight crew had no idea what the aircraft was doing or how to take corrective action, brought about by a loss of indication of air speed.
 
Thanks for a fantastic reply Jb, I am in awe of your knowledge and your willingness to impart it to us back seat drivers. Just one missing piece of info. What is the aircraft situation when in Law I? The point you make about the difference between a pilot and a button jockey is well taken on board. I seem to remember an Air France flight Rio to Paris that was caught in a storm. The flight crew had no idea what the aircraft was doing or how to take corrective action, brought about by a loss of indication of air speed.

I've just corrected my answer...there's not much difference between 1 and 2...but 2 will probably have an available autopilot.

AF447 was a rather sad, and very unnecessary event. Most pilots cannot understand it, as it goes so far beyond normal behaviour. There is a checklist for loss of all airspeed, and one of its lines calls for 5º of pitch, and climb power. But, the first line of the checklist actually provides an out for literally doing nothing (sitting on your hands). Basically, if you are at a normal attitude, and have a normal power set...then the performance will be what it normally is. You don't need an airspeed input at all to safely fly the aircraft. Not even to land it. The pilot who was doing most of the 'flying' actually used full aft stick, in an attempt to hold this attitude, even though it was not appropriate. In no world does holding full aft stick for any length of time give you anything other than a very deep stall.
 
To be fair, the Chinese are not the only ones who have trouble understanding things on the radio. And, their English is generally much better than my Chinese.

People that I have found hard to understand...well possibly Korea was the hardest. But JFK is a close second. Flying over and into China, I've not had any particular issues. They stick to standard phrases, so we expect them and can work them out, sometimes with a confirmation call to ensure we have it right.

Colloquial phrases, and non ICAO terminology, coupled with fast speech are hard for me to understand, so I can appreciate the difficulty that some may experience. The USA is the winner here.

Easiest...well the Poms win by a mile, but their ATC is generally excellent anyway.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of the poms JB, I’ve seen a number of BA FD videos and observing their procedures I find them a little odd. Constantly switching between who is PF and who is PNF. For example: The PNF engages the reversers on touchdown. Does this just fall into the category of several ways to skin a cat or do you see potential issues with it?
 
Speaking of the poms JB, I’ve seen a number of BA FD videos and observing their procedures I find them a little odd. Constantly switching between who is PF and who is PNF. For example: The PNF engages the reversers on touchdown. Does this just fall into the category of several ways to skin a cat or do you see potential issues with it?

Seriously? Ok, I've never heard of that. The thrust levers belong to the PF, unless you end up with an abort on take off, in which case they belong to the Captain.

Send me a link...
 
It seems that Unite is complaining that the UK cabin crew on QF9/10 only get 25 hours in Perth before flying back to London with ~19 hour duty periods on each flight and say they should get more.
How long do they get in SIN? How long did they get in DXB?
How long to the flight crew get in London?
 
Ok, interesting video. Not how we do it. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone doing it that way.
 
Back
Top