Ask The Pilot

When I was very young one of the old boys told me to never disclose anything medically. Family history? Non existent. It’s very sad that he felt compelled to tell me that ( others also told me after this) however, it was sage advice.
Nothing has changed. Never use your DAME as your GP. Don’t use that government medical record system. It’s an own goal of mistrust.
 
JB, in the "Traveller" supplement of the Age there is an article about Airlines. The article, titled
"The truth behind 13 rules of flying you (probably) didn’t know about" has a para about single engine operation. It says that the A380, once airborne, can run on one engine.

Is this true?
 
Indeed - missing one of the many warnings is bad enough, but it would appear they missed or ignored all of them…
It’s not just that they missed the warnings. The lack of coordination is astounding…almost like they weren’t in the same aircraft. And you don’t need a warning system to tell you that you have stupidly too much energy. The average passenger couldn’t do a worse job.
 
JB, in the "Traveller" supplement of the Age there is an article about Airlines. The article, titled
"The truth behind 13 rules of flying you (probably) didn’t know about" has a para about single engine operation. It says that the A380, once airborne, can run on one engine.

Is this true?
No, not really. I suppose if you were light enough, and the good engine was inboard, you might be able to get away with something. The power required on approach would be around 100%.

It flies pretty well on two, but you wouldn’t want that to happen on take off. We did play with that (one on the take off roll, and the second airborne) in the sim, but you need to be able to trade some height for speed to allow you to accelerate and clean up. If you don’t have any height to trade, you’ll never get above the drag hump, and the speed will slowly bleed, with an obvious end result. The performance in this instance was quite a bit better than the 747 though.
 
This is probably the most horrifying analysis that I've ever seen Pieter do. Should be mandatory watching for all of those passengers who consider all airline coughpits to be equal.

Where do you even begin? 18,000 hours of experience? Even watching a simulation of it is not believable it’s that crazy.
 
I was recently reading that some of the NH pilots can be mixed fleet flying type rated on both the a320 and the a380. Given their small a380 fleet size and utilisation, it makes sense in some way but I was wondering if it would be super jarring to go from flying the biggest commercial plane one day and a small single aisle the next shift?
 
I was recently reading that some of the NH pilots can be mixed fleet flying type rated on both the a320 and the a380. Given their small a380 fleet size and utilisation, it makes sense in some way but I was wondering if it would be super jarring to go from flying the biggest commercial plane one day and a small single aisle the next shift?
I think anything like this is stupid. The aircraft have some level of similarity, but much more in the way of differences.
 
Sponsored Post

Struggling to use your Frequent Flyer Points?

Frequent Flyer Concierge 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 Frequent Flyer Concierge team at Frequent Flyer Concierge will help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

No, not really. I suppose if you were light enough, and the good engine was inboard, you might be able to get away with something. The power required on approach would be around 100%.

It flies pretty well on two, but you wouldn’t want that to happen on take off. We did play with that (one on the take off roll, and the second airborne) in the sim, but you need to be able to trade some height for speed to allow you to accelerate and clean up. If you don’t have any height to trade, you’ll never get above the drag hump, and the speed will slowly bleed, with an obvious end result. The performance in this instance was quite a bit better than the 747 though.
Hi JB. With QF 30 did you have any issues the engines as a result of the explosion that would have tested your sim training experience.
Also on BA 009 in 1982 with the 4 engine flameout how difficult would the plane be to fly with engines coming online and then off-line?
 
Hi JB. With QF 30 did you have any issues the engines as a result of the explosion that would have tested your sim training experience.
No. We were suspicious of #3, simply because it was close to whatever had happened, but decided to use it normally, whilst being prepared for any untoward behaviour. A single engine out in a 747 is easily handled. As we'd lost the anti skid, and that has a fairly large effect on the landing distance requirements, I was keen to use its reverse thrust. That doesn't really do much, but in this instance any help was good.
Also on BA 009 in 1982 with the 4 engine flameout how difficult would the plane be to fly with engines coming online and then off-line?
No really all that difficult to fly. They don't produce much power at idle, which is where they'd have been on the restarts. As the power comes up asymmetrically, you need to balance it with rudder, but power changes would have been made gently, and so would the rudder inputs.
 
Last edited:
No really all that difficult to fly. They don't produce much power at idle, which is where they'd have been on the restarts. As the power comes up asymmetrically, you need to balance it with rudder, but power changes would have been made gently, and so would the rudder inputs.

Hi JB - with BA009 wouldn't they have lost all hydraulics and electrics too as the engines werent turning? Not sure if there would have much windmilling given the unique circumstances of the incident.
 
Just saw this on Twitter (X). So much for a sterile coughpit. Heads may roll

“United Airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration are investigating how a passenger gained access to the coughpit of a 757 at cruise altitude in violation of the company’s policy and FAA regulations.

The incident reportedly occurred on April 10 when a United Airlines 757 was operating a Major League Baseball charter flight for the Colorado Rockies from Denver to Toronto.

In a statement United Airlines said, "We’re deeply disturbed by what we see in that video, which appears to show an unauthorized person in the flight deck at cruising altitude while the autopilot was engaged. As a clear violation of our safety and operational policies, we’ve reported the incident to the FAA and have withheld the pilots from service while we conduct an investigation."

Whilst I remember my time in the jump seat of a 747 AKL/SYD (invited up for approach and landing into SYD at night), I’m shaking my head at the stupidity of both these pilots. Aeroflot 593…

Yes it was a charter flight (so is it a Part 121 or 135 flight) but that shouldn’t make a difference?

Pilots - Thoughts?

 
Last edited:
Hi JB - with BA009 wouldn't they have lost all hydraulics and electrics too as the engines werent turning?
The engines weren’t running. They were turning happily enough. The ash melted as it went through the burners, but then cooled enough to accrete on the turbine blades, changing their shape slightly, and causing the engines to to compressor stall. Restarting in denser air certainly wasn’t guaranteed, but the mach number would have been lower, making the engines less susceptible to the effects from the ash.

Think about it, if a 747 lost all of its hydraulics then the aircraft would be unflyable. The flight controls cannot be moved manually, only hydraulically. And without electrics, how would you restart anything. You cannot start the APU of a 747-400 in flight. For a windmilling start you need the IAS to be as high as possible to a minimum of around 250 KIAS. If they maintained their cruise speed, that would have been about 320 KIAS and at that speed the hydraulic pumps should work normally. The hydraulic pumps will hang in until about 150 KIAS. Not sure about when the generators would have dropped out...the best answer seems to be that you'd need to keep the IAS high.

I'll see if I can track down some more info about the generators. The manuals don't tell us much. I do recall that in some instances of engine failure, a generator warning was the first thing you got, so the margin in which they work may be quite narrow.

It gets more interesting. The actual report doesn't seem to be available, but I found this quote:
The crew were somewhat surprised to observe that loss of all generators had evidently not occurred as a result of the engine failures as there was no evidence of the electrical load shedding that, in corresponding simulator training, had occurred in such circumstances. Given the workload of attempting successive engine restarts during a glide descent in IMC, a key result of this was that the Captain’s AP was still useable.

So, that's probably the definitive answer. The generators stayed online, possibly though luck, and the APU wasn't used.
 
Last edited:
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Just saw this on Twitter (X). So much for a sterile coughpit. Heads may roll.
Yep, say goodbye to your job.
“United Airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration are investigating how a passenger gained access to the coughpit of a 757 at cruise altitude in violation of the company’s policy and FAA regulations.
I’m not familiar with the FAA rules regarding charters. But breaching the company rules alone would be enough to see the guillotine come out.
Whilst I remember my time in the jump seat of a 747 AKL/SYD (invited up for approach and landing into SYD at night).
Having people in the coughpit was fine. I did it as much as I could. But in the seat…no way. The cabin crew were pretty good at picking who to invite, and who to fob off.
I’m shaking my head at the stupidity of both these pilots. Aeroflot 593…
Yep. Doing it. Filming it. Mad. As for 593, even that wouldn’t have turned into a disaster if the bloke in the other seat had actually had his seat in a position from which he could fly, rather than rolled all the way back.
 
Just saw this on Twitter (X). So much for a sterile coughpit. Heads may roll

“United Airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration are investigating how a passenger gained access to the coughpit of a 757 at cruise altitude in violation of the company’s policy and FAA regulations.

The incident reportedly occurred on April 10 when a United Airlines 757 was operating a Major League Baseball charter flight for the Colorado Rockies from Denver to Toronto.

In a statement United Airlines said, "We’re deeply disturbed by what we see in that video, which appears to show an unauthorized person in the flight deck at cruising altitude while the autopilot was engaged. As a clear violation of our safety and operational policies, we’ve reported the incident to the FAA and have withheld the pilots from service while we conduct an investigation."

Whilst I remember my time in the jump seat of a 747 AKL/SYD (invited up for approach and landing into SYD at night), I’m shaking my head at the stupidity of both these pilots. Aeroflot 593…

Yes it was a charter flight (so is it a Part 121 or 135 flight) but that shouldn’t make a difference?

Pilots - Thoughts?
Definitely shaking my head at this one. The guy in the left seat got me nervous just looking at him in there. Not to mention, his knee close to the control column and even imitates the action of pushing it saying "I just push this button and...". Unbelievable.

Charter or not, it is still a commercial airliner. The company would have a policy about who is authorised to be in the flight deck based off the FAA regulations.

Then there's the fact that it needed to be recorded and put all over the interwebs...really? 🤦🏻‍♂️
 
Back
Top