Ask The Pilot

When the SO is in the coughpit, who is the pilot flying? Does that remain the Cap't / FO with the SO remaining the monitoring pilot, or does the SO also take on some pilot flying for some of the trip? Although during the cruise is there much of a difference between the pilot flying and pilot monitoring roles?

We just kept it as per what seat is PF for the flight. So if the Capt was PF for take off and I was paired with the FO, then I’ll be PF.

There’s not too much to do in the cruise anyway as PF. PM would be filling in the flight plan at each waypoint.
 
Was onboard QF127 recently to HKG, specifically VH-OEJ. Given the pending retirements of the QF 747's and not being sure if I'd be on board a 747-400 again, I wanted to take a photo of serial/manufacturing plate above the L1 door for memories sake.

Was told by the CSM at the door that this was allowable as the "aircraft was still in service. For operational reasons photos cannot be taken of the plate...".

Question - is this really true? Or was I fed a bunch of lies.

The same CSM then fobbed me off by saying "for your knowledge, the plane has been in service for about 25 years old" which I chose to bite my tongue and refrain from pointing out to him that this was an 'ER'.
 
Was onboard QF127 recently to HKG, specifically VH-OEJ. Given the pending retirements of the QF 747's and not being sure if I'd be on board a 747-400 again, I wanted to take a photo of serial/manufacturing plate above the L1 door for memories sake.

Was told by the CSM at the door that this was allowable as the "aircraft was still in service. For operational reasons photos cannot be taken of the plate...".

Question - is this really true? Or was I fed a bunch of lies.

The same CSM then fobbed me off by saying "for your knowledge, the plane has been in service for about 25 years old" which I chose to bite my tongue and refrain from pointing out to him that this was an 'ER'.

Really?? That’s a bit rough. I can’t see any problem with you taking a photo of the plate. What operational information would be on there that you wouldn’t be able to get elsewhere? Rego? MSN? Made by Boeing in Seattle Tacoma Intl?

Good one.
 
Really?? That’s a bit rough. I can’t see any problem with you taking a photo of the plate. What operational information would be on there that you wouldn’t be able to get elsewhere? Rego? MSN? Made by Boeing in Seattle Tacoma Intl?

Good one.

Yup. Disappointing, but I wasn't going to argue the point at the door.
 
How about flights in late November? Need to pick between 36 or 38 ;)
Late November is included in the roster that goes up to the new year, and that won't be out until around the end of October.

There is a chance that that roster might be another blank line (i.e. no allocated flying). I'm not sure that I'm prepared to do yet another Christmas/New Year in blank line limbo. So it's all TBA at the moment.
 
The FO must sit in their seat and the SO sits in the Captain’s seat.
Prior to 9/11 I was fortunate to ride the jump seat for take-off and landing on a couple of 744 sectors QF2 LHR-BKK and QF10 SIN-MEL. Each of these sectors carried 1 * SO. The QF2 LHR-BKK sector was interesting. When I entered the coughpit the Captain was in his rack with the SO occupying the LH seat. We were cruising at FL350 and about 1hr out of BKK. About 30 minutes from landing the FO briefed the arrival into BKK and suggested the SO hand fly the descent to around FL110. During the descent I was surprised at the level of coordination with control (attitude) / throttle (power) movement required to maintain the desired descent profile. As we approached FL110 the Captain appeared from his rack with a cup of coffee in hand. Upon reaching FL110 the FO took over from the SO with the Captain taking the LH seat from the SO. The FO then flew the approach and landing. The SO did say that it was rare to get the opportunity to hand fly the aircraft for that long and through the initial approach.

The question is are there any restrictions (i.e. altitude) on when an SO can occupy LH / RH seats. Talking with the SO he had around 6,000+ hrs courtesy of the RAAF flying F111's, etc - so total experience wasn't an issue. Second question - with the level of automation available combined with requirements on when and where the automatics need to be engaged how do the pilots ensure they keep up their hand flying skills. I seem to recall this may have been a contributory factor into the Asiana 777 SFO incident.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
The question is are there any restrictions (i.e. altitude) on when an SO can occupy LH / RH seats. Talking with the SO he had around 6,000+ hrs courtesy of the RAAF flying F111's, etc - so total experience wasn't an issue. Second question - with the level of automation available combined with requirements on when and where the automatics need to be engaged how do the pilots ensure they keep up their hand flying skills. I seem to recall this may have been a contributory factor into the Asiana 777 SFO incident.

Thanks

SOs can only occupy a control seat while the aircraft is at FL200 or above. That's part of the new type rating to align us with ICAO. Technically, once in Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM) airspace (FL290-FL410) the autopilot must be engaged.

On departure in the 777 pilots used to have a hand fly for a bit usually up to 10,000ft. Approach on the other hand was different. Unfortunately after flying all night and fatigued the autopilot would be used to about 500ft and the autothrottle all the way to touchdown. So while it could have been done to disconnect from 10,000ft, it does load up the PM too, who may well be just as fatigued so it's usually a good idea to keep the automatics in. So there's really not a lot of opportunity to fly a full visual approach at any other time and perhaps maybe twice a month if you're lucky? Domestic ops is a little different. I'll fly into a CTAF, Class D and Class C aerodromes all in one day sometimes so I have plenty of opportunity to practice my manual visual approaches.

Also the different fleets have their own SOPs too. While 737 can land with the autothrottle in (just like the 777) there were issues around touchdown and pilots floating so the SOP became that once you disconnect the autopilot you do the same with the autothrottle.

Asiana was a basket case. There are lots of options to successfully fly a visual approach on the autopilot. The problem with Asiana was that it was all done on the autopilot in a mode where there is no autothrottle protection. It is actually a limitation on the aircraft to not fly in Flight Level Change (FLCH) below 1000ft.
 
Prior to 9/11 I was fortunate to ride the jump seat for take-off and landing on a couple of 744 sectors QF2 LHR-BKK and QF10 SIN-MEL. Each of these sectors carried 1 * SO. The QF2 LHR-BKK sector was interesting. When I entered the coughpit the Captain was in his rack with the SO occupying the LH seat. We were cruising at FL350 and about 1hr out of BKK. About 30 minutes from landing the FO briefed the arrival into BKK and suggested the SO hand fly the descent to around FL110. During the descent I was surprised at the level of coordination with control (attitude) / throttle (power) movement required to maintain the desired descent profile. As we approached FL110 the Captain appeared from his rack with a cup of coffee in hand. Upon reaching FL110 the FO took over from the SO with the Captain taking the LH seat from the SO. The FO then flew the approach and landing. The SO did say that it was rare to get the opportunity to hand fly the aircraft for that long and through the initial approach.

I do hope that your memory of this event is faulty, as what I’m reading is a terribly irresponsible lack of management by the captain, and a breach of a number of company rules.

It is standard for the rosters to finish at 30 minutes prior to top of descent, with ‘all on’ from that point. The briefing is not done until everyone is present. Any FO who failed to call me back prior ToD would not be operating home. Any captain who failed to be present for the brief, and then didn’t turn up until about FL110 would be demoted..if he was lucky.

The question is are there any restrictions (i.e. altitude) on when an SO can occupy LH / RH seats. Talking with the SO he had around 6,000+ hrs courtesy of the RAAF flying F111's, etc - so total experience wasn't an issue.

There have always been restrictions, but they have changed a lot over the years. When I first joined, I have feeling that it was as low as 1,500’...in any event it wasn’t high. That gave SOs a chance to fly with the aircraft fully configured, and also meant that their heads had to be planning all the way to touchdown. As you raise the limit at which they’ve got to be out of the seat, so their planning slowly disappears.

Over the years the restrictions crept higher. I don’t recall the stages, but now it’s FL200. At that level, none of them ever disconnect the autopilot, so it’s been a terribly retrograde step as far as their long term training is concerned.

But, there was one exception to these limits. There used to be an animal called a ‘senior Second Officer’. They weren’t necessarily any more senior than others, but they were actually landee...they were allowed to do take offs and landings. They haven’t existed for many years though. I was one, but for only one flight.

Second question - with the level of automation available combined with requirements on when and where the automatics need to be engaged how do the pilots ensure they keep up their hand flying skills. I seem to recall this may have been a contributory factor into the Asiana 777 SFO incident.

It is a now a very real problem. You have a number of groups within the pilot body. There’s those who have previously flow aircraft that either didn’t have much automation, or in which is wasn’t used a great deal. They developed strong flying skills, and whilst they do degrade without practice, they are a very solid basis. At the other extreme, the world is now starting to see people who have done very little actual flying, and who have spent their working careers in various forms of electric jets. They don’t develop flying skills in these aircraft, and they didn’t develop them beforehand.

Asiana is a quite amazing case...right up there with AF447. Basically the captain under training couldn’t fly worth a proverbial. He acknowledged that he was concerned before the flight about the likelihood of having to do a visual approach. But, this should be a bread and butter type of event. If you look at his background, he’d been an FO on the 747...but in an airline environment where FOs are basically SOs with an extra bar. He would have done very little flying in that seat. He then moved to the A320 for command. This is a very different aircraft, in which the system protects you from most of the nasties of the aviation world. Back to Boeing for a command conversion, and he’s worried about something that could appear on any flight. He reverts to Airbus to a degree, in that he’s turned off his flight director, and in an AB there is only one FD switch, and it puts the auto thrust into speed mode. The lack of thrust lever motion in an AB would have served to desensitise him to the thrust levers’ lack of motion in the 777. A Boeing pilot would have been expecting to feel the levers move as the auto thrust kicked in, and would just push them up himself if they didn’t.
 
Last edited:
There have always been restrictions, but they have changed a lot over the years. When I first joined, I have feeling that it was as low as 1,500’...in any event it wasn’t high.

There’s a FD video on YouTube that may illustrate that. 744 in the Kai Tak days. A seat change is observed quite low. It’s a good video.

 
There’s a FD video on YouTube that may illustrate that. 744 in the Kai Tak days. A seat change is observed quite low. It’s a good video.

I can’t identify the Captain, but if I have the other two correct, then the FO retired a few years ago, having been a long time 767 then 744 Captain. The SO, was also a 767 Captain, and is now, I think, on the A330.
 
Just arrived back into Sydney after a week in Boston. The AA BOS-LAX return leg arrived in LAX 63 minutes ahead of what is scheduled as a 6hr 15min flight. The Captain said between a mix of track shortening and favourable winds they were able to pick up. Is it really possibly to pick up 63 minutes in a flight of that length or is it more the 6hr 15min scheduled flight time has a bunch of padding built into it? I remember many years ago the SYD-MEL flight being timed in the schedule for 55min - now its out to 1hr 35min.

The QF12 LAX-SYD was scheduled to depart at 2230 arriving into Sydney at 0630+2. There was a "seating plan issue" according to the Captain. Eventually this resulted in a passenger and baggage being off-loaded. The plane was all locked up and ready to depart however Door L2 re-opened and the seat belt sign came off as we needed to take on additional fuel. The additional fuel was as a result of the extended delay on the ground and that our departure was now going to be after midnight necessitating a runway change. All in all we departed 1hr 52mins late (00:22) and landed into Sydney 2hr 4min late.

From a crew fatigue management standpoint I would imagine both the Tech and Cabin crew would have come up from Costa Mesa (Orange Country) in the early evening on Friday night. Assuming they left their hotels at 2000 for a scheduled 2230 departure they would have been up and running for more than 19 1/2 hrs by the time we landed in Sydney. The question is at what point does the Airline and/or Captain pull the pin on the flight leaving LAX and reschedule for the next day. Alternatively, I'm not sure if the flight plan was originally scheduled this way but we our track crossed over the northern tip of the north island of New Zealand (tracking further south than normal). If duty time was marginal would it have been a viable option to call out a stand by crew and place them in Auckland and for the flight to do a crew change in Auckland and a splash and dash back to Sydney?
 
Just arrived back into Sydney after a week in Boston. The AA BOS-LAX return leg arrived in LAX 63 minutes ahead of what is scheduled as a 6hr 15min flight. The Captain said between a mix of track shortening and favourable winds they were able to pick up. Is it really possibly to pick up 63 minutes in a flight of that length or is it more the 6hr 15min scheduled flight time has a bunch of padding built into it?

That's an extraordinary saving, but it's also on a route that I expect has a lot of delays due ATC at the start. I think, these days at least, schedules are based on a percentile using actual chock to chock times. That means that delays that occur on the ground, but after brakes release will be incorporated into the average sector duration. So, if you happen to luck in, and not get those delays, you're already ahead. It's a 5 hour flight, so a bit of an ATC win, some track shortening, and about 80 knots better than average wind, would get you the sort of gain you experienced. And that would give a chock to chock time that could be achieved about 1% of the time.

I remember many years ago the SYD-MEL flight being timed in the schedule for 55min - now its out to 1hr 35min.

That sort of stupid scheduling existed back in the days of TAA and Ansett, and carried on for few years after QF bought TAA. The times were impossible. Most of the time they were faster than the flight time on the navigation flight plan (and that is only flight time). It was marketing driving. If one airline claimed 58 minutes, then the other had to claim 57. To add insult to injury, the turn around times were then applied to these impossible flight times, with the result that aircraft were late from the first flight, and it got worse on every following flight. Looking at my log book, the times from that era are mostly in 1:25 region. For years, we used to fly the 767s at lower altitudes, and flat out, in an attempt to correct this sort of scheduling, but even then, you could only save a few minutes. Eventually someone worked out the costs involved...

The QF12 LAX-SYD was scheduled to depart at 2230 arriving into Sydney at 0630+2. There was a "seating plan issue" according to the Captain. Eventually this resulted in a passenger and baggage being off-loaded. The plane was all locked up and ready to depart however Door L2 re-opened and the seat belt sign came off as we needed to take on additional fuel. The additional fuel was as a result of the extended delay on the ground and that our departure was now going to be after midnight necessitating a runway change. All in all we departed 1hr 52mins late (00:22) and landed into Sydney 2hr 4min late.

Sounds like someone didn't like their seat. Delays build on top of delays. If you can take off from 24L, the taxi fuel is around 600kgs. But, if you need to go to 25L, you're looking at closer to 1,500 kgs. APU will burn about 700 kgs per hour, so you'd be around 2-2.5 tonnes short. That sort of short fall is enough to have you diverting, so best to fix it when the opportunity is still available.

From a crew fatigue management standpoint I would imagine both the Tech and Cabin crew would have come up from Costa Mesa (Orange Country) in the early evening on Friday night. Assuming they left their hotels at 2000 for a scheduled 2230 departure they would have been up and running for more than 19 1/2 hrs by the time we landed in Sydney. The question is at what point does the Airline and/or Captain pull the pin on the flight leaving LAX and reschedule for the next day. Alternatively, I'm not sure if the flight plan was originally scheduled this way but we our track crossed over the northern tip of the north island of New Zealand (tracking further south than normal). If duty time was marginal would it have been a viable option to call out a stand by crew and place them in Auckland and for the flight to do a crew change in Auckland and a splash and dash back to Sydney?

The pilots don't stay at Costa Mesa. They are the only ones that flight time duty limits legally apply to. Cabin crew have industrial agreements that include limits. In both cases the clock doesn't start until one hour before the scheduled departure, so the transport time from the hotel is not counted. That is both good and bad. Some of the journeys are longer than you really want, but the alternative of airport hotels is far worse.

With the delay you mention, the duty period would have been 18:34. So, you've got another 86 minutes before you're looking at exceeding the max time. And, you have plenty of options. The easiest is to simply reroute towards Brisbane. Given that when you leave LA, it's mid afternoon in Sydney, there is plenty of time to position a crew to Brisbane. Auckland is a bit harder, but still doable in some circumstances. Every effort would be made to get the aircraft as close as possible to Oz. It's only when you simply cannot do that with the crew you have that you'd look at delaying the flight.
 
Sounds like someone didn't like their seat.
Yes - I continue to be surprised at the behaviour of passenger who are supposedly "smart" in business yet when they get onboard a plane they leave all rational thinking and common sense in the departure lounge.

In this instance the passenger was given the option of taking the seat on their boarding pass or get offloaded into the hands of LAX police. Eventually the choice was taken away from them and they will probably need to fly another airline back to Sydney. The additional stress and pressure this put the entire crew under was significant as they not only dealt with the problem passenger but other passengers who were getting increasingly stressed about missing connections out of Sydney.

Kudos to Murray Butt and his crew for the way they handled things - well done.
 
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

Question to our learned pilots - what has been your experience with uncontrollable passengers. does the FO go back to see what is going on, can he lend a hand if required given the possibility of personal injury, and if one or two passengers are called to assist what is the airline's liability in case of injury to them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Question to our learned pilots - what has been your experience with uncontrollable passengers. does the FO go back to see what is going on, can he lend a hand if required given the possibility of personal injury, and if one or two passengers are called to assist what is the airline's liability in case of injury to them.

I've not had a great deal of trouble with passengers, and have never had an uncontrollable passenger in flight. The cabin crew have handled those who've become problematic. I offload anyone who gives me even the slightest of reasons.

If a passenger does become an issue, the pilots will not, under any circumstances, get involved. The coughpit door stays firmly locked until it is resolved. It's a very rare flight on which I don't have at least 8-10 male cabin crew.

Law enforcement or military are the only ones likely to ever be asked for any assistance. I'm not a lawyer...but as I understand it, they then have the same level of protection as crew.

These discussions always neglect the fact that the vast majority of passengers are the exact opposite of troublesome, and simply want to get from A to B as quickly and neatly as possible.
 
Question to our learned pilots - what has been your experience with uncontrollable passengers. does the FO go back to see what is going on, can he lend a hand if required given the possibility of personal injury, and if one or two passengers are called to assist what is the airline's liability in case of injury to them.

Last time this happened to me I was an FO at Rex. This particular passenger became unruly almost as soon as we got airborne. They moved up from the back of the plane to front sitting in front of the FA waiting for her to get out of her seat. Once vacated, the pax decided she wanted to get off and decided to try to open the door.

The FA immediately went back to stop the pax however they would not let go of the handle. Immediately on the phone to us to let us know of the situation. We asked the FA if she was ok in dealing with this pax (she was a tough cookie so we knew she could handle herself). Straight away the Capt and I looked at each other and without a doubt I got straight onto ATC to get a priority return to SYD.

It became apparent soon after that this passenger had taken some sort of illicit drug just before boarding because we were still in the air and they wanted to get off thinking we had already arrived at Dubbo. In an effort not to send the unruly pax into an even further spin we decided not to make a PA to the rest of the pax as it would become fairly obvious to them we would be returning.

We contacted the company and the AFP were there to meet us on arrival. They took the pax away and the last we heard was they had banned them from the airline.

It is very clear that the flight deck door is to remain locked. We don't know how many 'other' pax are waiting for that door to open while we are distracted with the first unruly passenger. Once we get on the ground then the violent pax no longer have control of the situation and they know it.
 
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.

Yes - I continue to be surprised at the behaviour of passenger who are supposedly "smart" in business yet when they get onboard a plane they leave all rational thinking and common sense in the departure lounge.

In this instance the passenger was given the option of taking the seat on their boarding pass or get offloaded into the hands of LAX police. Eventually the choice was taken away from them and they will probably need to fly another airline back to Sydney.
I'd be interested in the circumstances leading up to the offloading.

Was the passenger put under stress? Was their seat changed without their permission and then forced to sit in middle seat for 14 hours? Or was it a situation similar to what @Flashback faced recently where they had to endure a long haul flight sitting next to someone with unbearable body odour?
 
Back
Top