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.

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Posts
11,558
I was wondering with wake turbulence separation and the Concorde was there more turbulence near the ground compared to subsonic plane of a similar size?
Whilst I've shared the airspace with a Concorde, I've never run into its wake, so I can't say for sure. It's a relatively small aircaft, so even if it did punch above its weight, I wouldn't expect it to be all that bad. The worst wake maker for its size is the 757.
 
Last edited:

flyer89

Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2014
Posts
320
Whilst I've shared the airspace with a Concorde, I've never run into its wake, so I can't say for sure. It's a relatively small aircaft, so even it it did punch above its weight, I wouldn't expect to be all that bad. The worst wake maker for its size is the 757.
The 757 wake issue is actually quite interesting and a bit esoteric. Makes for some decent late night reading if you are interested in that kind of stuff. It had NASA involvement back in he day.
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Posts
11,558
I thought the 757 and 767 shared a similar wing design?
The 767 wasn't too bad, but the 757 was pretty noticeable, even in a 747.

They may both have been supercritical, but their planforms are totally different. I suspect most of the similarity existed in the coughpit, so they could chase dual endorsement...which is a purely dollar based design goal.

www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b757/pics03.shtml

www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b767/pics03.shtml
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Posts
11,558
Maybe not the right thread, but this sent to me by a retired EK A380 driver mate may be of general interest and worthy of a comment from @jb747: Hold Up, Emirates Wants Airbus To Build Even Bigger Jets...
It's easy to wish for things when there is no chance of having to actually pay for them. EK is lucky to be in a great geographical position, that allows it to push into other markets. Others can't really play that game, so, sadly, the 380 and it's ilk are dead.
 

Fergo747

Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Posts
302
Qantas
Platinum 1
Again, might not be one for this particular thread but given we have an esteemed QF A380 (retired) driver I figured it was the best place I could think of to ask.

As we know, QF are retiring / scrapping two of its 12 A380's (apparently one is being scrapped as we speak). The two that have been chosen for retirement are OQE and OQF. My question is why would these two aircraft have been chosen? I mean, there are OQA-OQD that are older than the two selected and we know that OQA had the uncontained engine failure so would have thought that those older aircraft would have been first in the pecking order for retirement.
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Posts
11,558
As we know, QF are retiring / scrapping two of its 12 A380's (apparently one is being scrapped as we speak). The two that have been chosen for retirement are OQE and OQF. My question is why would these two aircraft have been chosen? I mean, there are OQA-OQD that are older than the two selected and we know that OQA had the uncontained engine failure so would have thought that those older aircraft would have been first in the pecking order for retirement.
It will have been decided by where they are in the cycle of maintenance heavy checks. Basically has an expensive check just been done, or is there one due in the next year or so.

Whilst OQA had its famous incident, it was repaired to manufacturing junctions, so it’s not as if it was done by your local panel beater. It was out of service for a long time too, which lowered its hours compared to the others around it. Nevertheless, there is a theory that it’s haunted by the ghost of Nancy.

It’s sad to see any of them going at such a young age though.
 
Joined
Sep 29, 2011
Posts
347
Qantas
Platinum 1
The issue of evacuation when at a bridge is sufficiently grey that it comes up as a discussion item in command training. There is no answer that is necessarily correct, although when looked at in hindsight there’s plenty of opportunity to be wrong.

There’s probably a scale of time to be considered. Using a bridge would take, say 7-10 minutes to get everyone off. Using 3 slides (380), might take 5 minutes. Using all of the slides, less than 90 seconds. Injuries will range from nothing with the bridge, through probably minor but maybe a broken angle with ‘calm’ slide use. You’ll almost certainly have some broken legs and even hips with the full fat evacuation. So, question for the Captain is simply…“how much time do you think you have”. Said decision to be made with minimal information.
From back in July 2003


This was an interesting example where a 5:15am arrival, curfew procedures and a 12 kt tailwind resulted in an evacuation where a couple of malfunctioning slides left one flight crew member (FO from memory) and three passengers seriously injured.
 

RooFlyer

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Posts
20,897
Qantas
Platinum
Investigation: 200302980 - Boeing Co 747-438, VH-OJU

I notice in that report that the airline's name is only mentioned once, in the last page under 'safety reccommendations', although the pictures within the report obviously show a Qantas plane. The flight number not at all. Other reports of completed reports on incidents involving commercial jetliners I quickly checked did identify the airline eg AO-2021-028 (QantasLink), AO-2019-065 (SQ), AO-2021-037 (VA), AO-2020-058 (JetStar) .

I know these reports are not 'name and shame' exercises, but is there any reason anyone can suggest why the airline/operator name would not be given somewhere in the report, such as under flight details, or the 'General Details' summary at the front, where it usually appears? (I'm not suggesting this is a consiracy in favour of Qantas :) but genuine query.) Maybe just a 'one of those things' omission?
 

jb747

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Posts
11,558
I suspect the difference comes down to the person who wrote the report. "The operator" is what I'd expect to see, so, to me, the naming is the unusual outcome.
 
Joined
Sep 29, 2011
Posts
347
Qantas
Platinum 1
I went for a flight in a Decathlon once, out of Canberra. For some obscure reason I wanted to do an outside loop. I’ve grown up now.
I did a Decathlon endorsement many years back with Tom Dennis at the Airport Flying School in Canberra - VH-KAR from memory. Tom always said that you don’t finish flying a Decathlon until its tied down and your in the car driving away from the airport.

What made you want to do an outside loop?
 

ausfox

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Posts
372
Qantas
LT Silver
Chris, your statement ref keep it flying until it’s tied down is applicable to all taildraggers isn’t it?
 

oz_mark

Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 30, 2002
Posts
20,059
I notice in that report that the airline's name is only mentioned once, in the last page under 'safety reccommendations', although the pictures within the report obviously show a Qantas plane. The flight number not at all. Other reports of completed reports on incidents involving commercial jetliners I quickly checked did identify the airline eg AO-2021-028 (QantasLink), AO-2019-065 (SQ), AO-2021-037 (VA), AO-2020-058 (JetStar) .

I know these reports are not 'name and shame' exercises, but is there any reason anyone can suggest why the airline/operator name would not be given somewhere in the report, such as under flight details, or the 'General Details' summary at the front, where it usually appears? (I'm not suggesting this is a consiracy in favour of Qantas :) but genuine query.) Maybe just a 'one of those things' omission?

I think the ATSB changed its policy on this. Read a lot of the older reports, and they didn't mention the operator. They started mentioning the operator a few years ago.
 
Top