Ask The Pilot

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Posts
11,344
JB how big does the pool of pilots need to be to keep one A380 flying normally . Also have you heard if the Melbourne A380 pilot base is open or is opening again?
Across a fleet, you need about 7 Captain/FO pairs for any aircraft. Most of the 380 ops were with two SOs. So, 7C, 7F, and 14 SO per aircraft.

I haven't heard anything about Melbourne. From what I did see, it had pretty much 100% loss of the Captains. My guess it that it's unlikely to be restarted. I'll ask around, though from what I'm hearing there's been precious little feedback from the company about anything.
 
Sponsored Post

This is an example of a Sponsored Post, one of the many ways you can advertise on the Australian Frequent Flyer.

Other options include banner advertisements on our content and forum pages or our newsletter. You can also purchase an audio message on our podcast - or if you just want to try it out, you can sponsor a thread.

If you'd prefer not to see any advertisements (including these sponsored posts), you can become an AFF Supporter from just $6 and instantly remove all advertisements from our website!

straitman

Enthusiast
Moderator
Joined
Apr 27, 2003
Posts
18,078
Qantas
LT Gold
Virgin
Gold
There was a tale about a student who managed to escaped from a Winjeel via a tiny side window. I don't know the details, but I think it was a bail out. When he tried to get out the same window on the ground, he couldn't do it. Incentive is an amazing thing.
This story was around when i was at 1FTS as student and still being mentioned when I was back as an instructor. I have been through the ADF Serials Database and can't find any incident/accident that matches so maybe it's an urban myth.
 

mjt57

Active Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Posts
875
There was a tale about a student who managed to escaped from a Winjeel via a tiny side window. I don't know the details, but I think it was a bail out. When he tried to get out the same window on the ground, he couldn't do it. Incentive is an amazing thing.
When NSCA was operational down here, I watched the helicopter "sim" where the crew, all geared up and strapped in into this helo shell were dumped into a big tank of water and submerged.

Those who didn't get out, well I suppose that helicopter weren't for them...

Yes, the real thing is an incentive, isn't it?
 

straitman

Enthusiast
Moderator
Joined
Apr 27, 2003
Posts
18,078
Qantas
LT Gold
Virgin
Gold
When NSCA was operational down here, I watched the helicopter "sim" where the crew, all geared up and strapped in into this helo shell were dumped into a big tank of water and submerged.

Those who didn't get out, well I suppose that helicopter weren't for them...

Yes, the real thing is an incentive, isn't it?
Yes it is.

I have done HUET many times. When it’s upside down, blindfolded and with random jammed exits it does get a little interesting.
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Posts
11,344
When NSCA was operational down here, I watched the helicopter "sim" where the crew, all geared up and strapped in into this helo shell were dumped into a big tank of water and submerged.

Those who didn't get out, well I suppose that helicopter weren't for them...

Yes, the real thing is an incentive, isn't it?
It’s not so much about incentive as it is showing people that being methodical and calm will have you out pretty quickly. It’s the same reason that they put us under parachutes in the pool, and on the A-4 dragged us behind a boat as you worked to get the harness released.
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Posts
11,344
From memory HMAS Melbourne lost a SeaKing and an A4 in the same day. The SeaKing pilot Vic Battese and co pilot Mark Ogden said they were both lucky to get out and the HUET probably went a long way to saving the lives of the crew.
The Seaking was a tail rotor drive failure. They just don’t hover well without it.

The A-4 (which happened first) was a USN exchange pilot, who I think flew F-4s in the US. On landing the aircraft arrester hook split the cable, which then broke. Sadly it broke after taking 20-30 knots of speed, so too fast to stop, way too slow to fly. The pilot wasted no time in ejecting. The speed of his reaction was impressive.
 

straitman

Enthusiast
Moderator
Joined
Apr 27, 2003
Posts
18,078
Qantas
LT Gold
Virgin
Gold
My father was onboard that day and said the decision for the Sea King crew to fly away from the ship probably saved some lives of those on the flight deck..
When a helicopter breaks up with all the rotary bits moving it’s a big mess. If you look at my login pic you will see both the a/c are very broken as they meshed rotors. Some rotor parts were found about a mile away.
 

kookaburra75

Established Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Posts
1,481
Qantas
Platinum
Virgin
Gold
It’s not so much about incentive as it is showing people that being methodical and calm will have you out pretty quickly. It’s the same reason that they put us under parachutes in the pool, and on the A-4 dragged us behind a boat as you worked to get the harness released.
In a previous life, we flew on and off the offshore oil rigs, and all went through the training in the rigs, where we were strapped in, lights turned off and we got flipped upside down. You couldn't panic, and just follow the training to get out. We got to use it in practice when one afternoon heading back to Aberdeen something went "bang" and we descended into the water. The pilots did an excellent job and we didn't even roll over when we splashed down. Mind you they copped it from all of the local lads who complained loudly what they thought they were going to miss out on a Friday night.
 

drb1979

Intern
Joined
May 3, 2007
Posts
73
@jb747 any appreciable difference between flying the different models of the 747 classic?

i.e. did the 747SP have different systems or processes compared to the 747-200?
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Posts
11,344
@jb747 any appreciable difference between flying the different models of the 747 classic?

i.e. did the 747SP have different systems or processes compared to the 747-200?
31 years since I last flew one. From what I recall, most of the differences between them were on the engineer’s panel, with the front seats being much the same. The ones I remember as the nicest of the bunch were the RR engined -200s, though I don’t think there was all that much between them and the 300s. The SPs were not the sports cars that the internet would have you believe. They were lighter than the others, with the same wing, but the engines were dramatically derated. Their reduced tail volume also made them much less responsive in pitch.
 

mjt57

Active Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Posts
875
Missus flew to SYD today from MEL (which is very quiet). It was on QF436, an A330.

Don't they normall operate 320s or 737s on this service?

I'm guessing (and am prepared to be shot down) that they're giving various types a run to get everyone back up to speed? Or are all the regular aircraft still in storage?
 
Joined
Sep 29, 2011
Posts
338
Qantas
Platinum 1
31 years since I last flew one. From what I recall, most of the differences between them were on the engineer’s panel, with the front seats being much the same. The ones I remember as the nicest of the bunch were the RR engined -200s, though I don’t think there was all that much between them and the 300s. The SPs were not the sports cars that the internet would have you believe. They were lighter than the others, with the same wing, but the engines were dramatically derated. Their reduced tail volume also made them much less responsive in pitch.

Back in the mid 80's I started doing semi regular SYD-LAX-SYD on the SP's. To mix it up every now and then you would get the SYD-PPT-LAX or SFO-HNL-SYD flights on one of the 747-200 combis. There was a mix of P/W and Rolls Royce powered aircraft. I remember talking to the flight engineer who said the there was a difference in the power depedent on power plant. From memory the Captain was a guy called Neil Anderson...
 

justinbrett

Established Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Posts
4,568
Qantas
Platinum
Virgin
Silver
Missus flew to SYD today from MEL (which is very quiet). It was on QF436, an A330.

Don't they normall operate 320s or 737s on this service?

I'm guessing (and am prepared to be shot down) that they're giving various types a run to get everyone back up to speed? Or are all the regular aircraft still in storage?

Qantas mainline don't operate A320s, mostly their LCC subsidary Jetstar do - and also Network Aviation (flying as Qantaslink) but that's on WA routes.

B737 is certainly the mainstay of the QF domestic fleet, but pre covid it was not unusual to have A330 flying on trunk routes like MEL-SYD. I think it was more common when QF had 767s but still not unheard of with A330s.

At the moment it makes perfect sense as the two busiest airports in Australia really have nowhere else to fly to until the other borders start coming down.
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Posts
11,344
Back in the mid 80's I started doing semi regular SYD-LAX-SYD on the SP's. To mix it up every now and then you would get the SYD-PPT-LAX or SFO-HNL-SYD flights on one of the 747-200 combis. There was a mix of P/W and Rolls Royce powered aircraft. I remember talking to the flight engineer who said the there was a difference in the power depedent on power plant. From memory the Captain was a guy called Neil Anderson...
I remember the name, but never flew with him.

The RRs were good for about 55,000 lbs of thrust. The P&W could get to about the same point, but only with water injection, and then only for around 90 seconds. Plus few take offs had water available anyway.

They sounded good when you used water injection…really howling. Plus most of the overtemp lights would come on, and it felt like an engine failure when the water ran out.
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Posts
11,344
this is so off topic to this thread now but gee I'd love to explore this view with you on the MAX. As a professional, even if on the much larger birds, your opinion counts for much to the MAX issues as opposed to armchair "experts" such as myself and many others with biased views on the subject. I know a few pilots, 737 and otherwise, who have both flown the MAX and not with a variety of views. It's interesting after all of the groundings, changes made and frankly attention paid to the aircraft systems that there's still such debate out there.

My own personal view as a nobody is that I reckon the max now is probably the safest aircraft in the skies these days after such intense scrutiny from multiple agencies, tests and all the rest. I would not be worried to be a passenger on one. However my job is not in the front office.
Scrutiny is not the same thing as actually fixing something. Yes, they are probably a lot more aware of some of the failure modes now, but MCAS still exists. They have not taken the actions that would really negate the risk, but have taken a software route that may make a repeat less likely, but not impossible.

What could permanently fix the issue:
a. Activation of the stab trim cutout switch that existed in every Boeing since Noah, that stopped all stab motion if the stick was pushed in the opposite direction. Every Boeing except the MAX!
b. Install triplicate AoA probes, and use them to control any activation of MCAS.
c. Install a proper backup electric trim in the aircraft, so that the use of a trim wheel, that can require force beyond what can possibly be delivered, can be consigned to the history books.
d. Fix the pitch issues so that MCAS is not necessary.

You’ll note that these are all hardware fixes. A software fix, for a hardware problem, is simply a workaround. As far as I am concerned, it’s a very long way from the safest aircraft in the sky.
It's funny because I wonder how many some of the "anti-maxxers" remember the 787 battery issues, the A380 issues, the A320 in its infancy and the crashes in France, some with pax and all the other aircraft that have issues in service (going back to the very sad case of the Comet).
And you’ll note that the 787 battery issues were not actually fixed, but rather an enclosure was introduced as a hardware workaround. This was all about saving the weight of a RAT, which would have made these batteries unnecessary. What 320 crashes? The air show one? That was purely an own goal by the pilots.

Boeing is a company with major management issues, all of which apparently date from its purchase of MDD. Sadly the MDD side of the party ended up in the management roles, and since that time Boeing has not had one aircraft come into service without major issues. Their last decent effort was the 777. The MAX, 767 tanker (!), 787, Starliner are all great examples of how it should not be done. Boeing, the engineering company produced wonderful aircraft. Boeing, the management company….not too sure what they make.
 
Top