Ask The Pilot

Sponsored Post

Struggling to use your Frequent Flyer Points?

Award Flight Assist 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 Award Flight Assist team at Frequent Flyer Solutions will help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

Saab34

Established Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Posts
1,998
I have run out of hours on occasion and in that case, a replacement just for me had to be made while I then went to the hotel, and the rest of the crew continued on (I had already done a couple of sectors prior to joining this crew). So it doesn't need to be related to sickness to get taken off a trip.
I see. What is preferred by most pilots? 3-4 day trips? Or the Jetstar like roster, same day return to base only. I would imagine a 5 day week back and forth to Sydney or Melbourne airports every day in peak traffic would be pretty rough on the body.
 

AviatorInsight

Established Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2016
Posts
1,040
I see. What is preferred by most pilots? 3-4 day trips? Or the Jetstar like roster, same day return to base only. I would imagine a 5 day week back and forth to Sydney or Melbourne airports every day in peak traffic would be pretty rough on the body.
Depends. Some prefer to sleep in their own beds every night and just do day trips. Others like to get their flying done in a block of days and then have a string of days off.

I’m personally the latter. Love just being on the road and then I only drive to work a few times a month as opposed to everyday. The less time I spend on the Emu the better.
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Posts
11,459
Depends. Some prefer to sleep in their own beds every night and just do day trips. Others like to get their flying done in a block of days and then have a string of days off.

I’m personally the latter. Love just being on the road and then I only drive to work a few times a month as opposed to everyday. The less time I spend on the Emu the better.
I generally hated short trips, and did all I could to chase long ones or to merge shorter ones.
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Posts
11,459
Are longer trips financially more rewarding? I assume overnighting = some form of allowance?
I guess that if you lived like a hermit, and only ate on the aircraft you could save some allowance, but just living normally was enough to use it up. It was taxed, and because its payment was based on where you last were, not where you are, you could often go to 24 hours or so with nothing. I just hated going to work (not being at work, just the act of getting there), which was why I chased longer trips.
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Posts
11,969
Aircraft Carrier takeoffs:

There are many videos of aircraft carrier takeoffs.
Why is there a slight roll as the aircraft leaves the deck. It is rare to see an aircraft take off wings level. It appears to be the same for jets and props
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Posts
11,459
Aircraft Carrier takeoffs:

There are many videos of aircraft carrier takeoffs.
Why is there a slight roll as the aircraft leaves the deck. It is rare to see an aircraft take off wings level. It appears to be the same for jets and props
My first thought was the onset of panic at what they'd just done....

You are most likely looking at USN videos, where there are multiple catapults. The idea there is that they turn away slightly from the other cat. It probably isn't all that relevant to peacetime ops, but when launching with no safety spacing, and different types and speeds, it makes sense.
 

Flying Fox

Established Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Posts
2,896
Would any pilots here like to comment on this statement -

And Jane Hrdlicka has no qualms about flying on the MAX, saying the exhaustive testing following two fatal crashes and a global grounding makes it “probably the safest aircraft in the world today.”

 

D747

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Posts
137
Qantas
LT Gold
I can't think why this would have happened, can the pilots please help me understand? 2 aircraft departing Wellington NZ today. One taxis north for a runway 16 departure and the other south for a runway 34 departure. Both left the gate at around the same time and the winds were a very light crosswind at 4kts/130º as seen in the pics. QF172 then sat idle at the northern end of the airfield for about 15 minutes and then taxied to the southern end of the airfield, via the runway initially and then back onto a taxiway as shown. All aircraft movements were departing and arriving on 34 during that time. Similar aircraft being an A320 and B738. Could load or weather or SOPs be a factor? Time was approx 1600 local. A Sydney bound QF flight had departed on 16 about 40 minutes earlier, if that helps.
 

Attachments

  • A.png
    A.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 17
  • B.png
    B.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 17

D747

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Posts
137
Qantas
LT Gold
Would any pilots here like to comment on this statement -

And Jane Hrdlicka has no qualms about flying on the MAX, saying the exhaustive testing following two fatal crashes and a global grounding makes it “probably the safest aircraft in the world today.”

I'm not a pilot but the word "Probably" is key here!
 

kookaburra75

Established Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Posts
1,535
Qantas
Platinum
Virgin
Gold
Would any pilots here like to comment on this statement -

And Jane Hrdlicka has no qualms about flying on the MAX, saying the exhaustive testing following two fatal crashes and a global grounding makes it “probably the safest aircraft in the world today.”

AviatorInsight penned a post about his experience in the sim training for the Max, and summed it up by saying he was looking forward to flying it.
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Posts
11,459
And Jane Hrdlicka has no qualms about flying on the MAX, saying the exhaustive testing following two fatal crashes and a global grounding makes it “probably the safest aircraft in the world today.”
She is the CEO of Virgin, so she’s hardly likely to say that it’s a dangerous piece of cough.

After all of the work that was done, it’s probably adequately safe, but it is a very long way from being the safest aircraft in the world.
 
Last edited:

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Posts
11,459
I can't think why this would have happened, can the pilots please help me understand? 2 aircraft departing Wellington NZ today. One taxis north for a runway 16 departure and the other south for a runway 34 departure. Both left the gate at around the same time and the winds were a very light crosswind at 4kts/130º as seen in the pics. QF172 then sat idle at the northern end of the airfield for about 15 minutes and then taxied to the southern end of the airfield, via the runway initially and then back onto a taxiway as shown. All aircraft movements were departing and arriving on 34 during that time. Similar aircraft being an A320 and B738. Could load or weather or SOPs be a factor? Time was approx 1600 local. A Sydney bound QF flight had departed on 16 about 40 minutes earlier, if that helps.
You need to disregard the landing aircraft. They’re unlikely to have any applicable performance limits. The ANZ A320 is only going to Auckland, so it will be relatively lighter, and would have more options before hitting any performance limits.

At 130/4 the wind is actually mostly headwind on 16, and tail on 34. It’s not strong, but I’ll bet it was moving around a bit directionally, and a margin would have been applied in the calculations. So, my guess would be that they did the calculation for 34 based on something like 7 tail, and nil headwind on 16. They’d then choose the one that gave the best margin. And sometimes trying to guess what the wind is doing doesn’t work out, and you end up having to change ends.
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Posts
11,459
Would appreciate some aviators comments on this
QF122 will take off from ZQN but refuel at CHC. Destination SYD. B738
There is a weather system in the Tasman sea with clockwise winds.
The operation out of Queenstown is always marginal, due to the combination of short runway and close high terrain. If you need extra fuel, and the weather in Sydney looks like it will be forcing extensive holding at the very least, then you almost certainly can't carry it out of Queenstown. There's nothing unusual in this operation via Christchurch as a solution.
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Posts
11,459
Apologies if already covered, but is this such a big deal for pilots?
We're back talking about the frog in boiling water.

A two knot increase, in itself is probably not such a big deal. The problem is that they shouldn't have the 5 knots in the first place. Any operation to a tailwind is inherently less safe than operating into a head wind. Not dramatically perhaps, but reducing safety for a non operational reason is very poor management. As you increase the tailwind, it simply becomes less safe. Go arounds (with all the noise they bring) become more likely. Floating and long landings are more likely. In many cases you're only a couple of knots away from the aircraft's limit...so a slight gust and over the limit; go around. Approaches with a tailwind are flown with less power, which means slower engine response, and in itself might force the use of more flap (for the drag) just to help with power/speed stability. The difference between landing with a 7 knot headwind and their proposed 7 tail is in the order of 20% more energy to get rid of after touchdown.

I always knocked ATC back when they were pushing downwind landings. Interestingly, they don't 'force' it, because then the authorities would have to accept some level of responsibility when it eventually goes awry. Which, sooner or later, it will.
 

mjt57

Active Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Posts
878
I always knocked ATC back when they were pushing downwind landings. Interestingly, they don't 'force' it, because then the authorities would have to accept some level of responsibility when it eventually goes awry. Which, sooner or later, it will.
Yep, public servants have this overarching motto "Cover Thy cough". Not surprised that they won't want to take responsibility for anything. And I'm not talking about the ATC folks here, but their management.

Did you read the comments in that article? Quite a few "authorities" on the matter who think that pilots are a bunch of lazy sooky-la las.
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Posts
11,459
Yep, public servants have this overarching motto "Cover Thy cough". Not surprised that they won't want to take responsibility for anything. And I'm not talking about the ATC folks here, but their management.

Did you read the comments in that article? Quite a few "authorities" on the matter who think that pilots are a bunch of lazy sooky-la las.
I'm still waiting for my fuel bonus. What a load of crock. But if you say it enough, people will believe it...
 

Enhance your AFF viewing experience!

From just $6 we'll remove all advertisements so that you can enjoy a cleaner and uninterupted viewing experience.

And you'll be supporting us so that we can continue to provide this valuable resource :)


Sample AFF with no advertisements? More..

Currently Active Users

Top