Ask The Pilot

[ayebee]

Here is a scan from a 1996 Melways - note these are not the original plans, ISTR those had much longer runways:

View attachment 189192

I bought my first Melways in 1972 and I recall seeing the planned runways it it.

The 1970 edition seems to be the first but with a different layout to the current proposal.

https://digitised-collections.unimelb.edu.au/handle/11343/23955

Map 5

https://digitised-collections.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/23955/293947_UDS2011363-4-0012.jpg?sequence=12&isAllowed=y

I understand the layout was changed to the current proposed "hashtag" in 1990.

 

[ayebee]

I bought my first Melways in 1972 and I recall seeing the planned runways it it.

The 1970 edition seems to be the first but with a different layout to the current proposal.

https://digitised-collections.unimelb.edu.au/handle/11343/23955

Map 5

https://digitised-collections.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/23955/293947_UDS2011363-4-0012.jpg?sequence=12&isAllowed=y

I understand the layout was changed to the current proposed "hashtag" in 1990.

PS ....

The 1990 edition was same as 1970, but 1991 was updated to what looks same as the 1996 page posted by serfty.

https://digitised-collections.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/54790/UDS2013221-15-0031-wm.jpg?sequence=31&isAllowed=y

that suggests the strategy plan change was indeed in 1990.

 

[QFflyermelbourne]

JB - I'm wondering about the operations of VH-EFR, the sole QF Freight 767.

As far as I know its an actual QF aircraft and not a contracted out situation like the Atlas 747Fs.

With only one plane in the fleet how does crewing work? There must be a tiny pool of pilots and given it seems to largely stick to the same daily flight plan it must be an excruciatingly boring assignment to have.

Seems insane they've continued with this aircraft and not replaced it with something like an A330F that could rotate pilots and be maintained with the passenger fleet.

 

[jb747]

JB - I'm wondering about the operations of VH-EFR, the sole QF Freight 767.

As far as I know its an actual QF aircraft and not a contracted out situation like the Atlas 747Fs.

With only one plane in the fleet how does crewing work? There must be a tiny pool of pilots and given it seems to largely stick to the same daily flight plan it must be an excruciatingly boring assignment to have.

Seems insane they've continued with this aircraft and not replaced it with something like an A330F that could rotate pilots and be maintained with the passenger fleet.

Sadly it’s part of the ongoing divide and conquer plan.

The pilots are not part of mainline, and have no seniority within it. They are on separate contracts. The union would have been quite willing to have the aircraft flown by mainline, but that’s just not they way the company wanted it.

So, yes, probably not that efficient.

 

[flyer89]

What really brought down the Boeing 737 Max? — The New York Times

Malfunctions caused two deadly crashes. But an industry that puts unprepared pilots in the coughpit is just as guilty.

apple.news

What Really Brought Down the Boeing 737 Max? (Published 2019)

Malfunctions caused two deadly crashes. But an industry that puts unprepared pilots in the coughpit is just as guilty.

www.nytimes.com

A very interesting article. 2 links to the same article.

 

[jb747]

What really brought down the Boeing 737 Max? — The New York Times

Malfunctions caused two deadly crashes. But an industry that puts unprepared pilots in the coughpit is just as guilty.

apple.news

What Really Brought Down the Boeing 737 Max? (Published 2019)

Malfunctions caused two deadly crashes. But an industry that puts unprepared pilots in the coughpit is just as guilty.

www.nytimes.com

A very interesting article. 2 links to the same article.

Sorry, I don’t see the question here.....

This article, as well as the writer, have been discussed at length on pprune. It reads very much like a Boeing PR blurb. His basic premise seems to that it was the pilots’ fault, because they weren’t super well trained American ones. There are choice errors and omissions, and scant regard for the fact that the knowledge that is widespread now, was unknown when these accidents happened. And of course we’ll never actually know a US crew would have handled things, as the conditions for that particular test no longer exist.

Whilst I’d have to agree about the lack of airmanship, and poor training....that’s sadly endemic across the entire world, driven by what is called “worlds best practice”, but is simply a race to the bottom.

 

[flyer89]

Sorry, I don’t see the question here.....

This article, as well as the writer, have been discussed at length on pprune. It reads very much like a Boeing PR blurb. His basic premise seems to that it was the pilots’ fault, because they weren’t super well trained American ones. There are choice errors and omissions, and scant regard for the fact that the knowledge that is widespread now, was unknown when these accidents happened. And of course we’ll never actually know a US crew would have handled things, as the conditions for that particular test no longer exist.

Whilst I’d have to agree about the lack of airmanship, and poor training....that’s sadly endemic across the entire world, driven by what is called “worlds best practice”, but is simply a race to the bottom.

I found that whenever he would write something critical about Boeing he would quickly take it back or divert the attention away from their failures. I had developed a conspiracy theory of what I thought Lion Air’s “best practice” is and it’s about as bad as I perceived it to be and probably worse.

 

[Quickstatus]

Pax in Lav.

If a Pax goes to the Lav on takeoff roll or on final approach, would a takeoff rejection or missed approach be a potential outcome (understand that there are conditions like IAS>V1 that would require a continuation)

 

[jb747]

Pax in Lav.

If a Pax goes to the Lav on takeoff roll or on final approach, would a takeoff rejection or missed approach be a potential outcome (understand that there are conditions like IAS>V1 that would require a continuation)

Once the aircraft is on the runway, the cabin crew wouldn’t ring the coughpit (well, they aren’t supposed to), and it’s unlikely that the phone would be answered anyway. Prior to entering the runway, you’d just have to wait, and if that meant you missed your take off slot, then so be it.

After the gear goes down on approach, the same contact restriction applies, so again you wouldn’t know about it, or do anything. Earlier in the approach (say prior to 1,000’ or so), it could well result in the approach being discontinued. I won’t give a hard and fast answer though, as many things could affect that decision too.

I expect the likelihood is much greater in some operations than others. On a recent trip with a US carrier, the seat belt switch seemed to have only one position, on, whilst in QF it was off as soon as possible, and only on when needed. It would seem to me that the US model has the effect of both making people more desperate, and also makes ignoring the sign the norm.

 

[QF WP]

For those that might not have seen these great videos on the ABC Brisbane Facebook page regarding Riverfire (well, the practice versions). Many thanks to the AFF'er who alerted me

FA18's :

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=712419445922494

FA18's fom the news chopper:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=391119771788003

C17A Globemaster (from chopper):

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2373882762866278

From 9:10 in the last video the office workers in that part of the city would have been mistaken for looking out the window, not knowing what was going on – wonder what was the height restrictions (floor) for the flight plan. From 13:25 onwards some may have thought it was 9/11 in Brisbane, given the seemingly impossible likelihood of a plane that size being given the right to fly that route.

Questions to the pilots here - would I be right in thinking that the flight plan was restricted to no being below 500ft? It looks like he's lower than that (judging against the height of some of the buildings he flew past). The chopper was probably at 500 and he was shooting down!

I was a bit worried on the turn out of the city (from 11:30) - that looked like it was closing in on maximum bank angle (for speed and that aircraft type). Should that have been a concern?

 

[jb747]

For those that might not have seen these great videos on the ABC Brisbane Facebook page regarding Riverfire (well, the practice versions). Many thanks to the AFF'er who alerted me

It might have been better to have gotten the links from a source other than Facebook. I have no intention of giving them permission to place a cookie(s) so that they can track my usage of AFF.

From 9:10 in the last video the office workers in that part of the city would have been mistaken for looking out the window, not knowing what was going on – wonder what was the height restrictions (floor) for the flight plan. From 13:25 onwards some may have thought it was 9/11 in Brisbane, given the seemingly impossible likelihood of a plane that size being given the right to fly that route.

I’d expect you’d have to be living under a rock to not know this was going to be happening. Happens every year too.

Questions to the pilots here - would I be right in thinking that the flight plan was restricted to no being below 500ft? It looks like he's lower than that (judging against the height of some of the buildings he flew past). The chopper was probably at 500 and he was shooting down!

Without knowing the height of some of those buildings, it’s a bit hard to make an estimate of altitude. But, there is no particular reason that they’d be limited to 500’. It’s also quite possible that the Hornet and the C17 have different limits. RAAF low level display limit used to be 200’, but it’s a long time since I was involved in that.

I was a bit worried on the turn out of the city (from 11:30) - that looked like it was closing in on maximum bank angle (for speed and that aircraft type). Should that have been a concern?

I see nothing of any concern in any of these videos. They look to be very nicely flown. These are not pilots who are just ‘having a go’. The routes would have been planned to the inch. Turn radius, speed, and bank (g) required at every point would have been worked out, and then practiced in the sims. The C17 isn’t going all that fast, as evidenced by the fact that he has some flap extended for the entire show. This isn’t a civil aircraft either, so I doubt that there is any such thing as ‘maximum’ bank angle. The part of the display that you mention though, actually has him pulling up wings level, and then rolling some bank on, whilst gently letting the nose fall back to the horizon. There’s nothing limiting here.

 

[QF WP]

It might have been better to have gotten the links from a source other than Facebook. I have no intention of giving them permission to place a cookie(s) so that they can track my usage of AFF.

I'll see what I can do to get the raw video then

I’d expect you’d have to be living under a rock to not know this was going to be happening. Happens every year too.

oh yes, I know it happens every year, but the date has changed over the years, however I'm sure there would have been many who don't take an interest and weren't expecting it. It used to be end of August (they had RiverFire on my wedding day 16 years ago and the FA18's/F1-11's flew nearby at low elevation just when I was giving my speech at the reception). Perfect timing

 

[iRobbo]

FWIW, the media helicopter is at 1000 ft, not sure if that adds anything to your perspective though

 

[casanovawa]

I guess that C17 that crashed in Alaska in 2010 pushed the maximum bank angle at what looked like about 80-90 degrees i guess for whatever speed it was doing, I imagine the Riverfire C17 flight was a little less envelope pushing than than the 2010 one....

 

[straitman]

I guess that C17 that crashed in Alaska in 2010 pushed the maximum bank angle at what looked like about 80-90 degrees i guess for whatever speed it was doing, I imagine the Riverfire C17 flight was a little less envelope pushing than than the 2010 one....

I have no idea RE the aircraft in Alaska however the Riverfire aircraft would have been empty which would be just a little over half it’s maximum weight. ie a huge margin.

 

[JohnM]

@jb747, have you read Byron Bailey’s piece in the Oz today criticising pilot ‘misjudgements’ regarding timing arrival on QF8 recently. If so, would you care to respond?

I’m never quite sure what to make of Bailey.

 

[docjames]

@jb747, have you read Byron Bailey’s piece in the Oz today criticising pilot ‘misjudgements’ regarding timing arrival on QF8 recently. If so, would you care to respond?

I’m never quite sure what to make of Bailey.

Can you please post a summary or snippet of the “contentious comments” as it’s behind paywall.

 

[jb747]

I guess that C17 that crashed in Alaska in 2010 pushed the maximum bank angle at what looked like about 80-90 degrees i guess for whatever speed it was doing, I imagine the Riverfire C17 flight was a little less envelope pushing than than the 2010 one....

I don’t think you understand the relationship between attitude, flight path, and angle of attack.

An A380 could be rolled to 90º angle of bank (you’d need to be in other than normal law to do so), without a negative outcome. And an apparently similar manoeuvre could be done, which would have exactly the same out come as the Alaskan crash.

So...how? Well, all you need is to initiate a reasonably steep climb (exactly as done by the C17 in Brisbane), and then, when you want to level off, simply roll the aircraft, but without applying any extra back stick, so the G loading will remain low. The aircraft will not be turning (much), and the nose will gently slice down towards the horizon. Roll out so that you’re wings level at, or slightly below zero pitch.

Now, let’s do it badly.

Whilst level, at reasonably low speed, roll on lots of bank, and attempt to remain level. As you bank, your lift vector is directed away from the vertical. If you break the generated lift (call it G) into components in which one is vertically up, and the other into the turn, you will need to pull sufficient total G for the vertical component to remain at 1G if you want the turn to be level. If you produce less than that 1 vertical G, then the nose will start to slice downwards into the turn. Sadly though, for a 90º angle of bank, you’d have to pull an infinite amount of G to make that level turn. G equals 1/cos (angle of bank). So, for a 30º angle of bank, you’ll need 1.15G. Go to 60º and you now need 2G. And at 80º, you’ll need almost 6G. Stalling is actually related to angle of attack (note, this is not the angle between the nose and horizon), but it’s generally described as a speed. As you pull more G, your stall speed will increase, in direct relation to the square root of the G loading. The upshot is, of course, that if you’re already at low speed, if you roll on a lot of bank, and then try to pull hard enough to remain level, you’re at risk of stalling the aircraft.

But, like everything in aviation, there can be more players involved. If you’re already slow, so the angle of attack is high, any move that allows the nose to get appreciably below the horizon is dangerous, as you’ll also need more than 1G to get the nose to come up again.

We talk about stalling and angle of attack as if it relates to the entire aircraft, but actually it doesn’t. Angle of attack, on most aircraft, is normally measured at the fuselage. But, as we manoeuvre, the angle of attack can will vary across the span of the wing. If I’m flying along level, and suddenly apply full roll control, the down going wing will experience an increased angle of attack, and the up going the opposite. But, if you are already on the verge of the stall, then it’s possible that by applying a lot of roll input, that you could stall the down going wing, at which point the roll will increase dramatically, and you’ll have departed from controlled flight.

 

[jb747]

@jb747, have you read Byron Bailey’s piece in the Oz today criticising pilot ‘misjudgements’ regarding timing arrival on QF8 recently. If so, would you care to respond?

I’m never quite sure what to make of Bailey.

As mentioned, it’s behind a paywall.

I think it’s fair to say that I’ve never seen anything he’s written that I agree with.

 

[QF WP]

I'll see what I can do to get the raw video then

Hmm, got it, now to see if I can post it. Need to be able to host it somewhere as it's a MOV file and not supported by AFF apparently.