Ask The Pilot

[mikenz]

If you lost power to all engines at cruise level how close would you need to be to a suitable airport to make a safe landing?

 

[Mattg]

A go around can happen anywhere... It wouldn't have been any more violent than a normal go around, simply because a go around normally involves an attitude change of 15-20º or so, and TOGA power. By definition, you can't get any more power, and whilst the attitude can go higher a little higher (especially in smaller aircraft), it's exactly what would be used in a go around.

Perhaps it was a go-around by definition in that case, but this doesn't really explain why it might have happened. We weren't anywhere near the runway yet and the manoeuvre was just so sudden and extreme. I can only assume it was a deliberate manoeuvre to get out of the way of another plane in a hurry. Is there any other reason you can think of that this might happen?

And as a pilot, would you have made a PA to inform and reassure the passengers?

That sounds a lot more violent that a normal go-around! I'm glad everyone survived!

Obviously I didn't mean loop-de-loops.

 

[Tortuga]

If you lost power to all engines at cruise level how close would you need to be to a suitable airport to make a safe landing?

Well, you get a good example of that each time an airliner descends from altitude. They'll go around 3.5 nautical miles for every 1000 feet of altitude, so from F360, you're looking at a glide range (clean) of about 120, or so, miles.

I asked a similar question a while back !

 

[The Rok]

What voltage are modern aircraft. I know the have ability to generate 220v for the in seat charging, but are all the primary electronics and electrics 220v or is it lower and the plane just uses an inverter to gain in seat charging?

 

[jb747]

Perhaps it was a go-around by definition in that case, but this doesn't really explain why it might have happened. We weren't anywhere near the runway yet and the manoeuvre was just so sudden and extreme. I can only assume it was a deliberate manoeuvre to get out of the way of another plane in a hurry. Is there any other reason you can think of that this might happen?

TCAS events are gentle, and you most likely wouldn't notice them at all.

A go around always feels much more violent than it is because it almost always happens after a period of relatively low power, and nose attitude. It's all about perceptions. It really isn't possible for the manoeuvre you experienced to be much more violent than a go around, simply because airliners don't have that much performance. Read the average newspapers' description of any passenger talking about a go around...it always sounds like they were in an F18...yet the very same performance an hour earlier at take off deserves no comment..because it was expected.

And as a pilot, would you have made a PA to inform and reassure the passengers?

After a go around, most probably, but you have to remember that it's one of the busiest parts of any flight, and PAs are low on the priority list.

 

[jb747]

What voltage are modern aircraft. I know the have ability to generate 220v for the in seat charging, but are all the primary electronics and electrics 220v or is it lower and the plane just uses an inverter to gain in seat charging?

220 is only used for the passenger electronics. There is normally 110 and 400 V ac, and 28 V dc.

 

[Flying Fox]

Just changed the tyres on one of the family cars and it got me to thinking about aircraft.

As far as I know, the tyres on aircraft only have longitudinal grooves. Why don't they have at least an inverted V groove pattern to assist with pushing water out the way?

Thanks

 

[Mattg]

TCAS events are gentle, and you most likely wouldn't notice them at all.

A go around always feels much more violent than it is because it almost always happens after a period of relatively low power, and nose attitude. It's all about perceptions. It really isn't possible for the manoeuvre you experienced to be much more violent than a go around, simply because airliners don't have that much performance. Read the average newspapers' description of any passenger talking about a go around...it always sounds like they were in an F18...yet the very same performance an hour earlier at take off deserves no comment..because it was expected.


After a go around, most probably, but you have to remember that it's one of the busiest parts of any flight, and PAs are low on the priority list.

Thanks JB. I guess this leads to another question: why would you go around so far out from the runway, as opposed to just levelling off and/or climbing gently if for some reason you weren't able to continue the approach?

I just had a look at where we were at the time on the radar. The location would have been more or less accurate but the data on speed and height was 3 minutes old, so we would have been a few thousand feet lower and most likely a bit slower as flaps 1 had just been selected, but still not close to final approach. (apologies, my iPad is in German - Venedig is the German word for Venice) :



Any ideas why a go-around would be initiated so far out from the airport?

 

[jb747]

Thanks JB. I guess this leads to another question: why would you go around so far out from the runway, as opposed to just levelling off and/or climbing gently if for some reason you weren't able to continue the approach?

I just had a look at where we were at the time on the radar. The location would have been more or less accurate but the data on speed and height was 3 minutes old, so we would have been a few thousand feet lower and most likely a bit slower as flaps 1 had just been selected, but still not close to final approach. (apologies, my iPad is in German - Venedig is the German word for Venice) :

View attachment 36266

Any ideas why a go-around would be initiated so far out from the airport?

It's pretty hard to say why any given procedure would have been carried out, without having been there. But, if the initial stage of flap was out, you're most likely somewhere around 3,000' and about 14 miles to run. Issues could be anything from aircraft related (that's when flap problems appear) to ATC, and almost anything in the middle. As to why they didn't make the GA more gentle...well, perhaps that comes down to a bit of Airbus behaviour. If you want to make the go around track active, you need to have pushed the thrust levers to TO/GA. From that altitude you should be able to immediately reduce the power again, though it will only come back to climb, and most likely start charging up towards either the flap limit, or 250 knots. Procedurally, it's messy having to pull the speed knob and use V/S, whereas letting the aircraft transition back into the normal climb phase is standard, and tidy.

 

[jb747]

Just changed the tyres on one of the family cars and it got me to thinking about aircraft.

As far as I know, the tyres on aircraft only have longitudinal grooves. Why don't they have at least an inverted V groove pattern to assist with pushing water out the way?

Good question. No idea.

 

[markis10]

Just changed the tyres on one of the family cars and it got me to thinking about aircraft.

As far as I know, the tyres on aircraft only have longitudinal grooves. Why don't they have at least an inverted V groove pattern to assist with pushing water out the way?

Thanks

Unlike most roads, runways at major Australian airports have grooves cut across the runways. Putting additional grooves in an aircraft tyre I suspect would not add much extra water dispersion capability and is likely to increase the incidence of chevron cutting. Chevron cutting of a tyre occurs during wheel spin-up when landing on these runways.

 

[drpurpleturtle]

[video=youtube;bnBr3enzW1I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnBr3enzW1I[/video]

Hey JB,

This seems to be the stupidest thing i've seen for a while. I'm guessing the stick shaker and stall warnings must have been going off...
I wonder if this guy had a job at the end of the day after pulling off a stunt like this??? unlike the poor bloke from CX who did something similar (though a fast flypast) with a 77W.

 

[Tortuga]

Morning JB, are you doing any flying next week?

I'm on QF10 on the 27th October.

 

[jb747]

No, I'm not flying again until 6/11.

 

[jb747]

This seems to be the stupidest thing i've seen for a while. I'm guessing the stick shaker and stall warnings must have been going off...
I wonder if this guy had a job at the end of the day after pulling off a stunt like this??? unlike the poor bloke from CX who did something similar (though a fast flypast) with a 77W.

He isn't necessarily anywhere near the stall...but it's still crazy. Looks like the classic unplanned manoeuvre, and they have a nasty habit of going wrong.

 

[TomVexille]

Hey JB,

This seems to be the stupidest thing i've seen for a while. I'm guessing the stick shaker and stall warnings must have been going off...
I wonder if this guy had a job at the end of the day after pulling off a stunt like this??? unlike the poor bloke from CX who did something similar (though a fast flypast) with a 77W.

I was under the impression that a little wing waggle was customary on a delivery flight. However the example seems a tad excessive.

 

[AustraliaPoochie]

Why is it, esp for SYD airport, on flights over to NZ, that the plane goes on many many many long movements before actual take off?
Was on QF to WLG and to CHC (different times), and both of these the plane kept going in loops on the runways, crossing over, then onto taxi ways, and then, when I expect take off, but no, but the plane makes another turn again.
Is it because of SYD tower having to let a lot of planes land my plane has to wait its turn?

 

[jb747]

Why is it, esp for SYD airport, on flights over to NZ, that the plane goes on many many many long movements before actual take off?
Was on QF to WLG and to CHC (different times), and both of these the plane kept going in loops on the runways, crossing over, then onto taxi ways, and then, when I expect take off, but no, but the plane makes another turn again.
Is it because of SYD tower having to let a lot of planes land my plane has to wait its turn?

You should try departing from JFK...sometimes you feel like you're going to drive to the destination.

Aircraft take off into wind (on most occasions), so that largely decides which runway you'll use. ATC then have to send you on a route that will get you from your start point at one of the terminals, to the runway, without unnecessarily crossing active runways, or meeting someone coming the the other way. In many cases, wing tip clearance can be an issue, which has the effect of making some taxiways unusable for some aircraft types.

I expect that you're departed via 34R, which is the furthest from the terminals, and the most convoluted routing...but it is still the most direct possible, and is both simple and logical. The view from the cabin is very restricted, and I guess it's hard to keep track unless you already happen to know the place intimately, but it makes sense from the coughpit (and the tower).

 

[Major]

You should try departing from JFK...sometimes you feel like you're going to drive to the destination.

Took off from JFK to FLL this morning. We taxied the full length of 1 active runway and then did a 180 to taxi to another one for take off. The PIC really had his foot to the floor and still took about 15/20 min to line up

 

[AustraliaPoochie]

Ta for that.