Ask The Pilot | Page 739 | Australian Frequent Flyer
Australian Frequent Flyer

Welcome to Australia's leading independent Frequent Flyer and Travel Resource since 1998!
Our site contains tons of information that will improve your travel experience.

Joining AFF is fast, simple & absolutely free - register now and take immediate advantage of these great BENEFITS.

Once registered, this box will disappear. And you will see fewer advertisements :)

Ask The Pilot

RSD

Active Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
814
I see them as a bureaucratic bully. In many ways weak, captured by the airlines they are supposed to regulate, but happy to use their weight against an individual. In particular, the medical side is somewhere between utterly incompetent, and criminally vindictive. Happy to mistakenly ground someone, but then making it an expensive, and very long winded, process to give back their medical. And never any admission of error.
I did here of a Virgin pilot who got Bali Belly on the return sector back to Melbourne and they made his life hell apparently. I've had to ground myself at the moment due to a sudden deterioration in my eyesight - not sure how long that is going to take to get back to something flyable... was very close to making it to 50 and 20:20 in 2020 but fell over three months short...
 

AviatorInsight

Active Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2016
Messages
775
That's why i took up gliding. It's much more relaxing and closer to nature
I wanted to take it up at 15 to go solo earlier but my parents wouldn’t fill out the form. I should definitely try it this time, but I suspect I may end up just flying the tug.
 

kookaburra75

Active Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
688
Qantas
Platinum
Virgin
Gold
Flights
My Map
I wanted to take it up at 15 to go solo earlier but my parents wouldn’t fill out the form. I should definitely try it this time, but I suspect I may end up just flying the tug.
I was fortunate and went solo at 16 - my profile photo is me in a Kookaburra glider after going solo - which dates me I know. Find a club with winch launches, that way you avoid the tugs.
 
Last edited:

blu

Active Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
799
Experienced pretty extreme Chop last night on JL771 about 10 minutes after climb out of NRT. Pilot said due to unexpected wind. The 789 was shaking (seemed violently at the time) for 5 maybe 10 minutes. Does the captain (or a computer) stabilise this or is it just a matter of continue on until clear? Is it too far out for wind shear? The rest of the flight was pretty bumpy as well.
 

AviatorInsight

Active Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2016
Messages
775
Experienced pretty extreme Chop last night on JL771 about 10 minutes after climb out of NRT. Pilot said due to unexpected wind. The 789 was shaking (seemed violently at the time) for 5 maybe 10 minutes. Does the captain (or a computer) stabilise this or is it just a matter of continue on until clear? Is it too far out for wind shear? The rest of the flight was pretty bumpy as well.
Here’s an easy way I define turbulence:
Light = Coffee moving in the cup
Moderate = Coffee spilling out of the cup
Severe = Cup missing

Windshear can occur at any level. You’ll usually have an idea due to different met reports and having a good look at the winds on climb both direction and strength.

The autopilot is usually good enough to handle it until in some cases of severe turbulence it might kick itself out. Depending on weight and the severity of the turbulence it could be an option to look for a smoother level.
 

RooFlyer

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
15,293
Qantas
Platinum
Flights
My Map
If you look at the video posted here by @AisleSeat :


...just before the commentator says 'Will he go around ...' which in turn was just before the wheels touched ... COULD they have gone around, do you think? I'm thinking with the wheels just fractionally off the tarmac and the aircraft pointing at high angle to the runway, maybe power on might have taken a second to kick in and then the aircraft would be contacting the runway, maybe then with the power taking it diagonally off the runway?? Or would the craft just have 'taken off' into the wind and not touched??

Put another way, with strong crosswinds, is there any additional precaution or dangers in the timing of the application of 'go around' power very close to the ground?
 

I love to travel

Established Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2016
Messages
1,262
Qantas
Platinum
And a supplentary question to the above post from RooFlyer would you have attempted to land given the conditions?
 

captainroma

Junior Member
Joined
May 2, 2019
Messages
42
Here’s an easy way I define turbulence:
Light = Coffee moving in the cup
Moderate = Coffee spilling out of the cup
Severe = Cup missing

Windshear can occur at any level. You’ll usually have an idea due to different met reports and having a good look at the winds on climb both direction and strength.

The autopilot is usually good enough to handle it until in some cases of severe turbulence it might kick itself out. Depending on weight and the severity of the turbulence it could be an option to look for a smoother level.
Is severe turbulence actually dangerous?
 

jb747

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
8,999
Flights
My Map
Experienced pretty extreme Chop last night on JL771 about 10 minutes after climb out of NRT. Pilot said due to unexpected wind. The 789 was shaking (seemed violently at the time) for 5 maybe 10 minutes. Does the captain (or a computer) stabilise this or is it just a matter of continue on until clear? Is it too far out for wind shear? The rest of the flight was pretty bumpy as well.
I don’t know why he’d say it was unexpected. The Narita area was pretty renowned for it. You’d always plan on the first hour of flight being pretty bumpy.

Have a look at windy.com

Nothing really stabilises it. You may fly out of it, or perhaps you can climb or descend out of it. But, if you’re in it, then there’s nothing you can do to make it nicer.

Windshear can exist at all levels, but you don’t get the large gusts we see near the ground, unless you’ve been silly enough to fly into a thunderstorm. It’s especially dangerous near the ground, simply because you are near the ground. The same dynamic can exist at any altitude, which is why avoidance is always the best solution.

The autopilot is usually good enough to handle it until in some cases of severe turbulence it might kick itself out.
Older aircraft (747-200 era) had a turbulence mode in the autopilot. If you selected that, it basically allowed the aircraft to move around a bit more than usual....it didn’t chase things quite as aggressively as normal. I’ve never seen turbulence kick an autopilot out, though whether that means I’ve mostly avoided it, or simply flown aircraft that were resistant, I don’t know.

Is severe turbulence actually dangerous?
To the aeroplane. Not really.

To the contents of the tube. Very. Simple solution is never to undo the seat belt if seated. A minus 1 g thump, followed by a 2 g recovery, could easily kill, but would be within the normal load limits of any airliner.
 

AviatorInsight

Active Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2016
Messages
775
If you look at the video posted here by @AisleSeat :


...just before the commentator says 'Will he go around ...' which in turn was just before the wheels touched ... COULD they have gone around, do you think? I'm thinking with the wheels just fractionally off the tarmac and the aircraft pointing at high angle to the runway, maybe power on might have taken a second to kick in and then the aircraft would be contacting the runway, maybe then with the power taking it diagonally off the runway?? Or would the craft just have 'taken off' into the wind and not touched??

Put another way, with strong crosswinds, is there any additional precaution or dangers in the timing of the application of 'go around' power very close to the ground?
A go around can be performed up to any point before the reverse thrust is actioned. Once that’s been selected go around is no longer an option.

Thrust will take a few seconds from idle up to full TOGA thrust, which is why in windy conditions, I’ll try and minimise the thrust to about 40%N1. The aircraft will then still weathercock into wind on the go around.

Additional precautions are the risk of tail and pod strike. So you’ll be working the controls a lot harder and basically you fly the aeroplane instead of it flying you.

And a supplentary question to the above post from RooFlyer would you have attempted to land given the conditions?
If the crosswind was within manufacturer limits then yes I would have given it a go. I’m paid to get people from A to B safely.
 

AviatorInsight

Active Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2016
Messages
775
Older aircraft (747-200 era) had a turbulence mode in the autopilot. If you selected that, it basically allowed the aircraft to move around a bit more than usual....it didn’t chase things quite as aggressively as normal. I’ve never seen turbulence kick an autopilot out, though whether that means I’ve mostly avoided it, or simply flown aircraft that were resistant.
737’s autopilot has kicked out a couple of times to me on approach. Definitely not severe but moderate for sure. I guess you could say the 73 also has a turbulence mode in that during severe turb, procedure is to go into CWS mode. I guess it’s around that same era as the -200.
 

jb747

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
8,999
Flights
My Map
...just before the commentator says 'Will he go around ...' which in turn was just before the wheels touched ... COULD they have gone around, do you think? I'm thinking with the wheels just fractionally off the tarmac and the aircraft pointing at high angle to the runway, maybe power on might have taken a second to kick in and then the aircraft would be contacting the runway, maybe then with the power taking it diagonally off the runway?? Or would the craft just have 'taken off' into the wind and not touched??
He's flared a bit too high, and so, it hasn't landed as soon as it should. I'd also wonder just when the power was pulled to idle. A delay can lead to this too. Ideally, you flare, squeeze it straight(er), drop the upwind wing a couple of degrees, and it should all happen over about 5 seconds. Once he's caught up in an extended flare, he can't take the drift off (in fact he increases it), so you're bound to end up with this sort of landing. He really should have gone around as soon as the extended flare happened, as the outcome was pretty much set in concrete at that point.

If the power has been pulled to idle, it will take a few seconds to come back and it's quite possible to touch down in the interim. The aircraft won't suddenly take off diagonally. The speed will stay approximately the same, and all that happens is that the vertical profile changes to a climb. The drift will stay the same. You wouldn't notice that at all if he weren't near the ground.

The could go around at any point prior to selection of reverse thrust.

Put another way, with strong crosswinds, is there any additional precaution or dangers in the timing of the application of 'go around' power very close to the ground?
For any go around near the ground, you have to expect that the aircraft may touch down. You need to be slower than normal with the rotation, to ensure that you don't have a tail strike. It won't happen in a hurry (though it might seem that way in the cabin).

As to whether I'd have even attempted the approach. Yes, almost certainly. The runway is dry. There is a bit of cross wind gusting, but not too bad (you can tell because the nose is pretty stable, and also by the movement of the lower rudder, which is a sideslip response by the FBW).
 
Last edited:

jb747

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
8,999
Flights
My Map
737’s autopilot has kicked out a couple of times to me on approach. Definitely not severe but moderate for sure. I guess you could say the 73 also has a turbulence mode in that during severe turb, procedure is to go into CWS mode. I guess it’s around that same era as the -200.
The 767-200 had CWS, but it was gone in the -300. I had a play with it occasionally, but it was, overall, a pretty useless mode.

I've seen autocoupled approaches go awry, but not because of turbulence. Failure of a self test can cause it to drop out of the autoland modes, but I don't remember seeing one lose all of the coupled autopilots. I do recall one case where it lost the plot approaching the flare, but I simply disengaged it and finished the job myself.
 
Last edited:

AviatorInsight

Active Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2016
Messages
775
The 767-200 had CWS, but it was gone in the -300. I had a play with it occasionally, but it was, overall, a pretty useless mode.

I've seen autocoupled approaches go awry, but not because of turbulence. Failure of a some of the self tests can cause it to drop out of the autoland modes, but I don't remember seeing one lose all of the coupled autopilots. I do recall one case where it lost the plot approaching the flare, but I simply disengaged it and finished the job myself.
That’s interesting, never knew the 767-200 had CWS. I don’t use CWS all that often, only for circuits really and even then I only use the roll mode and find it works better than a HDG bug and then I can just manipulate the path with V/S. Then once I’m on final I’ll disengage everything.
 

Saab34

Established Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
1,380
Flights
My Map
Yes so is that backseat SO time more a career strategic job as such? As in take it and expect progression later on.

Or is it more a CASA box ticking exercise, and bean counters chasing a wage saving? Instead of a Captain and two FOs, one Captain, FO, SO. Jetstar do this long haul on the 787 (they used to run two FOs to Hawaii back in the A330 days)

AV any SOs the 737?
 

Community Statistics

Threads
85,388
Messages
2,012,405
Members
52,584
Latest member
Minksta
Top