Ask The Pilot

Mattg

Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
10,661
Solutions
13
Points
1,335
I spotted the Jetstar A320 VH-VQQ today with what appeared to be a missing left sharklet. Would it have much of an effect on the plane’s performance if one sharklet (or a winglet, on other aircraft types) is missing?

And if one winglet is damaged for whatever reason, would it be preferable to remove the other one as well (or is that just more work without much benefit)?
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
10,344
Points
1,755
I spotted the Jetstar A320 VH-VQQ today with what appeared to be a missing left sharklet. Would it have much of an effect on the plane’s performance if one sharklet (or a winglet, on other aircraft types) is missing?

And if one winglet is damaged for whatever reason, would it be preferable to remove the other one as well (or is that just more work without much benefit)?
I’d expect any effect to be quite trivial. The FBW would almost certainly mask any difference anyway, but even in a non FBW aircraft I’d expect the difference to be similar to the normal level of ‘bent-ness’ that all aircraft have, so basically just not noticeable to the pilots. Fuel savings add up across an airline, but on a domestic flight I’d be surprised if it amounted to 50 kgs.

I don’t recall any MEL relief for the 380 allowing flight with a missing winglet. The 747-400 did have relief for one, but two were not allowed. No reason was given for that, but it might be as simple as not having been tested. In any event there would be no need to match the other side up…that’s just making work.
 

AviatorInsight

Active Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2016
Messages
928
Points
465
I spotted the Jetstar A320 VH-VQQ today with what appeared to be a missing left sharklet. Would it have much of an effect on the plane’s performance if one sharklet (or a winglet, on other aircraft types) is missing?

And if one winglet is damaged for whatever reason, would it be preferable to remove the other one as well (or is that just more work without much benefit)?
On the 737 given that it’s in fact a blended wingtip and not an “add on” as such there’s no MEL for an NG wingtip. If one is damaged, aircraft is unserviceable.

The scimitar winglet addition however can be removed if damaged on one side, but the MEL says that both need to come off and the aircraft can’t operate with just one.

It then reverts to a standard NG, with just an increased fuel burn of 2.2% for the trip.
 

D747

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
124
Points
165
Qantas
LT Gold
With flights made by dedicated cargo (Freighter) aircraft are both main and lower holds filled always / sometimes / never? TIA.
 
Last edited:

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
10,344
Points
1,755
With flights made by dedicated cargo (Freighter) aircraft are both main and lower holds filled always / sometimes / never? TIA.
My only experience of cargo aircraft, was the QF 747 Combis. On them, I’ve seen the cargo bay at any level from full to empty.
 

JohnM

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
9,625
Solutions
1
Points
1,825
Qantas
Platinum
A military one for @jb747:

In this latest Youtube post from Ward Carroll:
, he points out that, in the US military at least, the Air Force and Navy use reverse methods of connection for aerial refueling.

That seems odd. Is it just an historical artefact or is there a reason for it?
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
10,344
Points
1,755
A military one for @jb747:

In this latest Youtube post from Ward Carroll: he points out that, in the US military at least, the Air Force and Navy use reverse methods of connection for aerial refueling.

That seems odd. Is it just an historical artefact or is there a reason for it?

They are quite different techniques, both of which have positives and negatives.

The USAF method allows much higher transfer rates, and connection is controlled by the tanker (the ‘boomer’ position). The receiving aircraft just has to maintain a reasonable formation position, with no manoeuvering required. The position of the receptacle does not have to be within the receiving pilot’s line of sight, which may make some engineering options easier. It’s especially suitable for large receiving aircraft. Most probe tanker can also refuel via drogues, either by permanent fitment of a system, or by adding a short hose to the end of their boom. Those that have permanent drogues fitted to the wings, can often refuel more than one aircraft at a time.

The USN variant is all about flexibility. It does not require dedicated tankers. The USAF tankers are far too big for shipboard use, and even the largest carrier capable aircraft would struggle with the necessary figment of boomer position and the lenghty boom. The USN system uses ‘buddy store’ tanks. These are basically drop tanks, that incorporate the hydraulics and plumbing necessary for about 50’ of hose, with drogue attached. These stores can be carried on virtually any USN aircraft (except the F35). They have been commonly used on the A-6, A-7 and F-18. In Oz we could carry one on the A-4’s centreline. They allow the offloading of almost all of the tanker’s fuel, not just what is in the buddy store, so even a little A-4 could have something in the order of 10,000 lbs available for offload.
 

Saab34

Established Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
1,555
Points
400
AV how long do you think your and command upgrades in general have been pushed back due the COVID (and admin). 10 years?

would they take on a redundant captain back on before offering current FOs commands?

The scimitar winglet addition however can be removed if damaged on one side, but the MEL says that both need to come off and the aircraft can’t operate with just one.

It then reverts to a standard NG, with just an increased fuel burn of 2.2% for the trip.
Is that program not going ahead anymore? How many did you guys actually get done?
 

AviatorInsight

Active Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2016
Messages
928
Points
465
AV how long do you think your and command upgrades in general have been pushed back due the COVID (and admin). 10 years?

would they take on a redundant captain back on before offering current FOs commands?


Is that program not going ahead anymore? How many did you guys actually get done?
I’d say around 10 years, if not more. The redundant pilots get first dibs in seniority order to return if we start recruiting in the next 5yrs only. After that it goes to current pilots in seniority order and if there’s no one else left in the company then they turn to the redundant pilots, again in seniority order.

If that’s the case I’ll be pushing 20yrs in the company before a command. But...I’m trying to stay positive. I’ve still got a job and incredibly grateful even if it is from the right seat for a little longer. The only thing I can do is really try to be the best FO I can be while giving the Capts the best support that they need on a daily basis.

It’s aviation and unfortunately timing is everything, and things can also move very fast.

As far as the Scimitar winglet’s go, from what I can see only 3 have been done so far (YIR, YIS, YIV). From what I can remember I think 5 were only ordered to be done before it hit the fan and no further comms has been given if anymore are going to get done.
 

Saab34

Established Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
1,555
Points
400
I see QF is upgrading Airbus FOs at the moment to the left seat 737.

JB is 20 years the norm in QF anyway from first joining the payroll to left seat 737. ?

I guess longer waits for FOs at Virgin today will benefit the next generation of FOs who join in 10-15 years. Won’t need to wait too long as I assume all those FOs in the late 40s and 50s today need to retire after what will sadly be a reduced time in the left seat.
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
10,344
Points
1,755
I see QF is upgrading Airbus FOs at the moment to the left seat 737.

JB is 20 years the norm in QF anyway from first joining the payroll to left seat 737. ?

I guess longer waits for FOs at Virgin today will benefit the next generation of FOs who join in 10-15 years. Won’t need to wait too long as I assume all those FOs in the late 40s and 50s today need to retire after what will sadly be a reduced time in the left seat.
Qantas was pretty well always training FOs to be Captains. It doesn’t actually matter if you were Airbus or Boeing, especially if you’ve previously done time on the other brand. A number of the 380 FOs that I’ve kept in touch with have made the move to the 737, but that was a normal progression anyway.

Trying to guess timings though, is pretty well impossible. I always subscribed to the theory that you took any promotion you could get, as soon as you could. That meant though, that you’d be almost permanently ‘junior’. The only time I delayed at all, was a wait of only a couple of months, to get the 767 instead of the 747 Classic. I was fortunate to get a command in 7 years, but that is an almost unheard of timing, and was a consequence of the growth that happened when the company bought the 767.

The AVERAGE time in each of the three ranks will be about 10-12 years. So, on that basis a command on anything is about 20 years wait. But, numerous things affect that. The current contraction is terrible, but if things eventually go back to more or less normal, the top end has lost around 400 people, so for a while, there will quite an acceleration.

The left hand seat can sometimes be a poisoned chalice, so not everyone will be upset if they don’t get there.
 

Saab34

Established Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
1,555
Points
400
JB and AV is there still much demand among the ranks for those in either seat, who want to be trainers or even CPs? I was talking to a JQ Pilot recently who said the next generation (ie in the 30s) just want to fly and go home, nobody really wants to do any of that stuff.
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
10,344
Points
1,755
JB and AV is there still much demand among the ranks for those in either seat, who want to be trainers or even CPs? I was talking to a JQ Pilot recently who said the next generation (ie in the 30s) just want to fly and go home, nobody really wants to do any of that stuff.
It’s pretty much a rule in aviation, that anyone who wants the management jobs will be an average pilot, and probably the worst possible person for the job. Most people on the line would be hard pressed to think of a worse fate.

Training is somewhat different. I’ve seen a number of cycles in QF over the years, generally with one form of mafia or another (GA, RN, etc) gaining the ascendancy. I’m not sure that it was ever the best people for the job. There was always a tendency to pick good pilots, but they don’t necessarily make good trainers. Some people are excellent pilots, but don’t know why…and if you don’t know why you do something, how can you teach it. I had a training background in the military, but I never offered it to QF. At times there has also been a very strong ‘anti military’ feeling….
 

Saab34

Established Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
1,555
Points
400
Ok thanks. Sounds like the ‘good operators’ are the smart ones who avoid that stuff for good reason!
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
330
Points
240
Yes, surprisingly easy questions I thought. I read the book several years ago and the only questions I got wrong was identifying the part that failed and the name of the crew who was multilingual. Same 2 as the contestant I think.
 
Your simple solution to home security. Quickly view what’s happening at home when you're not there, giving you peace of mind.

Simple plug-in installation means you’ll be up and running in no time.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Top