Ask The Pilot

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
10,804
Points
1,770
There is a old Jetstar incident with a mobile phone being used on approach into Singapore which resulted in a unstable approach. I can’t recall if they were fired however it didn’t go down well apparently.
I don’t recall the exact repercussions, but as best I recall they were pretty severe.
AV might be able to answer however I would assume mobiles are turned off from push to top of climb? And top of climb to engines off? Is it on the checklist or just expected by company?
There was a standing order within QF. Mobiles were to be off, prior to push back.
JB
I see QF are doing LAX-LAX circuits every couple of months on these idle A380s.

Are these QF pilots? I assume Management?

Or American based A380 rated contract pilots etc..?
Management would be the least likely. They do bugger all flying in the best of times (but 100% of the interesting stuff). They’d be senior check Captains. They’ll need them if they ever want to start things up again. They may, or may not, use FOs. SCCs can sit in for them. I know some of the names.
 
Last edited:

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
10,804
Points
1,770
Last night "Sully" was on the box. Watching it, some of the scenes from the public enquiry bit of the movie had me asking "why did they do that?"

For example, during the sims in the A320 each of the pilots were operating the thrust levers and pulled them back to idle or whatever it's called as each landed without power. Why would they have done that?
Well, if you watch carefully, some even select reverse thrust. My take is that they actually filmed more or less normal landings in the sim, and used special effects to insert the out of window views. But, even in some sort of crash, it would be best to try to close the levers, as there have been cases over the years when engines have continued to run. Obviously unlikely in a ditching, but perhaps less so in any ground event.
The APU - Sully (Hanks) started it shortly after the bird strike. Would this have happened during the real event? How long does the APU run for following the departure process?
The APU was the 767 pilots’ solution to everything. Turning it on had no downside, gave your hand something to do for a couple of seconds whilst your brain caught up, and solved a lot of problems.

In this case, losing both engines would take both generators offline, once the engines ran down, and the aircraft would revert to battery power alone. This degrades almost every system in the aircraft, but in particular takes away most of the coughpit displays, and drops the flight controls to direct law. Now, whilst much is made of Sully’s landing, it wasn’t really a flared landing on water. He was very low, and decelerating, and eventually ran into the ‘alpha’ protection, at which point the aircraft mushed into the river. Alpha protection only exists in normal law, and by starting the APU, and its generator, he kept normal law online.
 
Last edited:

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
10,804
Points
1,770
One thing that gets me (and JB might know this one) is why they “pulled out” the checklis? Does the ECAM not display the checklist in a dual engine failure?
Much as I like to consider the 737 to be an ancient aircraft, the original A320 dates back a fair way now too. ECAM behaviour and capability has progressively changed over the years, especially as the aircraft has become more capable of accurately sensing failures. Even in the A380 there were a few items that had to be done from the checklist, although they could still be brought up on the ECAM. Basically, items that were going to affect the functioning of the ECAM itself, such as smoke in the electronics bay, in which you might start in the ECAM but be directed to the paper checklist as some of the actions will affect the ECAM or displays. Emergency evacuation has you turning off the batteries, at which point the coughpit goes completely dark, including all of the screens.

Getting back to the earlier A320, from what I've read, it's more akin to earlier EICAS, in which it has normal checklists, and warns you about things, but does not have the smarts necessary to dynamically work through failure checklists
 
Get paid up to 25% in real cash from your everyday purchases from leading companies such as Virgin Australia, Booking.com, Coles, Apple, Microsoft and much more. Free to join and no catches!

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

mjt57

Active Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
852
Points
295
After engine start the APU comes off. The only time we leave the APU on is when we’re doing EDTO flights,
Thanks. This bit answers my question.
As for checklists, when i did the A320 SIM (Xmas present from the kids) I liked how a screen would show a list of things to do/check and they'd disappear once fulfilled.

When I was still working I discussed this with our senior controls engineer and asked if we could implement something like that at work. Software, being Windows based, didn't really allow for it.

As far as a HMI goes, I absolutely loved how both Boeing (B737) and Airbus designed them. Easy to read, high definition, it seems and no lag in updates (say, speed changes).
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
10,804
Points
1,770
After engine start the APU comes off.
It's also sometimes left on after start if you need maximum performance for take off. If you leave the APU running, then you can power the a/c packs from that during take off, instead of from the bleed air. We used it at times from 24L out of LA, or between Sydney and Dubai when the departure side was in summer.

The 767 APU did not auto start, but it could be started at any speed or height. The 747 APU cannot be started in flight, but it could be used for take off as per my comment above. The A380 had both speed and height limits but could be run or started up to about FL200.
 

Quickstatus

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Messages
10,923
Points
1,320
Are the 24 and 25 runways at LAX actually 1 degree heading difference, or named as such to differentiate the 2 pairs of runways.
 

Saab34

Established Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
1,637
Points
400
All the same heading. 069.1/249.1

07/25 is pretty much the correct heading. 07/25 was built first. 06/24 came next

I assume it is to avoid having 4 runways in the same direction, to avoid confusion.
DB039398-35C3-4266-9133-209D3358A4CD.png
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
10,804
Points
1,770
Are the 24 and 25 runways at LAX actually 1 degree heading difference, or named as such to differentiate the 2 pairs of runways.
The numbers are based upon the magnetic track, so they may even change with time. A runway could start out, with it’s magnetic heading being say 180º, but as the pole moves so too will it’s magnetic track. So, it could be 18 to start with, but 20 years later, it might cross the threshold that would make it 17.

In the case of LAX it’s an attempt to reduce the confusion. The numbers have little relevance to the pilots these days, so it doesn’t matter if they’re a few degrees out.
 

bogusidiot

Newbie
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Messages
9
Points
40
Is the LAX setup the most efficient runway layout (4 in parallel)? And what do they do at LAX if there's a crosswind - how can they get away with no perpendicular runways and SYD/MEL etc can't?
 

AviatorInsight

Active Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2016
Messages
964
Points
470
Is the LAX setup the most efficient runway layout (4 in parallel)? And what do they do at LAX if there's a crosswind - how can they get away with no perpendicular runways and SYD/MEL etc can't?
Runway configurations try to be built with the prevailing winds, and/or terrain clearances. I had rarely seen any crosswinds coming into LAX. Of course it was mostly early morning.

A good example of this is the new runway at the Sunshine Coast. It used to be 18/36 with a crosswind every single time you would go there. Now with the new runway being 13/31 there is a dramatic reduction in crosswind component.

SYD gets it’s fair share of +25kt days where an east/west runway is needed. Look at yesterday and today. During summer the strong sea breezes will mean runway 07 will be the duty runway.
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
10,804
Points
1,770
I went to LA hundreds of times, and I can’t recall ever seeing more than 10 knots of crosswind. There is no ‘one layout fits all’ for runways. Local conditions dictate layouts in many ways.

Crosswinds are not something to consider lightly. I did hear once that the owners of Sydney were canvassing closing 07/25, presumably ‘cos they wanted the space for something unrelated to aviation. Operating near crosswind limits, as a matter of course, will invariably end in tears. You are, after all travelling at about 240 kph forward, whilst simultaneously moving at 70-80 kph sideways. Most drivers have trouble keeping their car in their lane at 100 kph….imagine trying to drive with that combination.
 

RailFlyer

Intern
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
87
Points
125
Staying on the topic of runway alignments. In your opinion, which airports around the world that you have operated to, have been designed with the worst alignments relative to prevailing winds. And which of those were for fair reasons, i.e. mountain in the way and which just appear to be bad planning (maybe to avoid flight paths over the wrong peoples' houses)?
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
10,804
Points
1,770
Staying on the topic of runway alignments. In your opinion, which airports around the world that you have operated to, have been designed with the worst alignments relative to prevailing winds. And which of those were for fair reasons, i.e. mountain in the way and which just appear to be bad planning (maybe to avoid flight paths over the wrong peoples' houses)?
Geography, and probably history, are the two major influences. It's a rare airport that isn't constrained by its geography in some way or other. History comes into play both in the historic alignment of runways, which tends not to change, and in the way local cities encroach upon their surrounds, and so constrain any future development.

Australia, in particular Sydney, is the worst place that I've ever seen for politics interfering with the aviation requirements. But, the caveat to that is that mostly I haven't seen what goes on elsewhere, so perhaps it's not the worst.

Hands down the worst place I've operated to with regard to crosswinds is Narita. It's also right up there for political interference. If you want some restful viewing, look up some of the landings there on youtube.

Australia wins for stupid, bordering on dangerous, use of out of wind and short runways, for political purposes. That's when they have an into wind runway, and don't want to use it, or send large long haul aircraft to short runways, when there's a nice big one right next to it.

The only time that I've ever had to divert due to crosswind was on a flight to London. We got down to about 200' before I gave it away, and went to Amsterdam. Only just got in by the skin of our teeth when we came back, as it was dry when we touched down (limit 35 knots), but wet by the time we finished the landing rollout (limit 27 knots). The x-wind was right up at 35.
 

Quickstatus

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Messages
10,923
Points
1,320
If you were able to change the runway heading what heading would you have preferred at the airports you have visited?

(Or maybe not , if it reduces the “fun factor”)
 

TomJones

Intern
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
57
Points
110
Not sure if this has been discussed earlier (couldn't find anything using search), but I listened to a really interesting podcast interview the other day with a bloke named Steve Giordano, who spoke about the weird world of professional ferry pilots working for lessors to deliver/recover/transfer aircraft.

Interview starts from 23:20


What I found most interesting was the number of active type ratings these guys hold - this guy was rated for the 737, 757, 767, 777, A320, A330, and A340 and among other work was involved in ferrying VA's 737s and 777s back to their lessors.

Have either of you guys come across professional ferry pilots before?
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
10,804
Points
1,770
What I found most interesting was the number of active type ratings these guys hold - this guy was rated for the 737, 757, 767, 777, A320, A330, and A340 and among other work was involved in ferrying VA's 737s and 777s back to their lessors.

Have either of you guys come across professional ferry pilots before?
That list isn't quite so impressive when you think about it. The 757/767 and 330/340 are the same rating. I had 757 at one stage, and I've never set foot in the coughpit.

Test pilots are in a world all of their own, with regard to ratings.
 

straitman

Enthusiast
Moderator
Joined
Apr 27, 2003
Messages
17,932
Points
855
Qantas
LT Gold
Virgin
Gold
Test pilots are in a world all of their own, with regard to ratings.
A friend of mine did ‘Empire Test Pilots course’ in the UK. He is effectively allowed to fly anything. He almost singlehandedly test flew from initial build all the RAAF F18s.
A few years ago he was asked to fly an old P2 Neptune from ADL to northern NSW. He got into the books, learnt the systems and off he went. All legal for him but not any of the rest of us.
Whilst on the subject there is a huge difference between maintenance test pilots and experimental test pilots.
Many of us have done maintenance test flying (I have done lots) however it’s experimental test pilots jb747 and I are talking about here.
 
Last edited:

OZDUCK

Established Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
2,644
Points
980
A friend of mine did ‘Empire Test Pilots course’ in the UK. He is effectively allowed to fly anything. He almost singlehandedly test flew from initial build all the RAAF F18s.
A few years ago he was asked to fly an old P2 Neptune from ADL to northern NSW. He got into the books, learnt the systems and off he went. All legal for him but not any of the rest of us.
Whilst on the subject there is a huge difference between maintenance test pilots and experimental test pilots.
Many of us have done maintenance test flying (I have done lots) however it’s experimental test pilots jb747 and I are talking about here.
And then you get someone like Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown of the RN. He flew 487 different aircraft types - the 14 different versions of the Spitfire and Seafire he flew are counted as 1 type. Performed the record number of carrier take-offs and landings (2,407 and 2,271 respectively). The first person to perform a landing and take-off a jet from an aircraft carrier, The only Allied pilot to fly the ME-163 rocket fighter. And on and on.
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
10,804
Points
1,770
Whilst on the subject there is a huge difference between maintenance test pilots and experimental test pilots.
Many of us have done maintenance test flying (I have done lots) however it’s experimental test pilots jb747 and I are talking about here.
I remember one CO's comment to the XO re picking a new maintenance test pilot. "Give it to'Fred', he's expendable."

I've flown with quite a few graduates of the various 'real' test pilot courses. They were all good pilots, but not necessarily aces. What was a common denominator was that they were all very analytical, and could always explain what had happened and why. Some of the best pilots are the worst instructors, because they have a natural gift, and because they don't need to be analytical, they cannot explain things to others.
 
Last edited:
Top