Ask The Pilot

[Quickstatus]

The 747 can be landed with all drift intact

Is your technique modified on a wet runway compared with a dry runway.

Engine thrust manual or autothrottle?

 

[jb747]

Do these parking areas ever have ground or external power JB?

Some may, but generally it will be external power carts, not some fixed infrastructure.

 

[jb747]

3rd landing attempt after two go-arounds - I'm not sure why the captain thought it would be any better the third time but at least he didn't end up in the drainage ditches off the side of the runway.

You are assuming he had a choice. For instance, if the airport required an hour of holding, that amounts to about 8, 000 kgs for a 747-8. So, on arrival he has the mandated holding, and that probably gives him a couple of close diversions. As the time passes, whether he is holding or flying an approach, that remaining fuel is decreasing, and with it, the options. Unless diversion fuel was mandated, he very likely wouldn't have the option for the entire time, so eventually landing becomes the only choice. Quite simply, if you think aircraft always have the ability to divert, you're mistaken.

I once flew 3 approaches to HK before landing. And when we did, the controller told us that we were the first to land after the typhoon's passage. In these places the weather often passes in waves, so getting in is really a case of being in the lull.

Love the comment in the comments section below the video "At least boxes can't scream"

Well, you normally can't hear the passenger screaming either....

 

[jb747]

Is your technique modified on a wet runway compared with a dry runway.

Engine thrust manual or autothrottle?

Takeoff was always done with the autothrottle, though it made very little difference. It just rolls the power to the target, then locks itself out. The 380 was a bit more complex with a pause along the way.

Landing in the 767 and 747 was always done with manual thrust, unless you were doing an autoland. The 380 had a full flight regime autothrottle, so it was engaged all of the time. That "retard" call that people are so amused by, is a reminder to pull the levers to idle, which also has the effect of disengaging the autothrust (as does selecting reverse thrust in all of them).

 

[RSD]

You are assuming he had a choice. For instance, if the airport required an hour of holding, that amounts to about 8, 000 kgs for a 747-8. So, on arrival he has the mandated holding, and that probably gives him a couple of close diversions. As the time passes, whether he is holding or flying an approach, that remaining fuel is decreasing, and with it, the options. Unless diversion fuel was mandated, he very likely wouldn't have the option for the entire time, so eventually landing becomes the only choice. Quite simply, if you think aircraft always have the ability to divert, you're mistaken.

One would hope that they would have taken plenty of fuel for a diversion given that they would have known that there was a typhoon in the area. They departed from HK so fuel capacity shouldn't have been an issue. Maybe they thought "will give it one more shot and if no luck then we'll divert". I guess there will be an incident report come out eventually which will give us more insight.

 

[Quickstatus]

Landing in the 767 and 747

Are you a wings level or slight upwind wings down in final approach for crosswind landing
Difference Boeing vs Airbus ?

 

[JustSlash]

Apologies if this has been asked before, I didn’t make it through all 947 pages of conversations…

What’s the best course you’d recommend for someone who’s never flown a plane? I’m not planning to become a pilot, just want to know a thing or two… you know, in case the apocalypse hits.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Apologies if this has been asked before, I didn’t make it through all 947 pages of conversations…

What’s the best course you’d recommend for someone who’s never flown a plane? I’m not planning to become a pilot, just want to know a thing or two… you know, in case the apocalypse hits.

If you just want to know a thing or two, then any flying school will be able to accommodate you.

 

[RSD]

… you know, in case the apocalypse hits.

Do you know something that we don't?

 

[jb747]

One would hope that they would have taken plenty of fuel for a diversion given that they would have known that there was a typhoon in the area. They departed from HK so fuel capacity shouldn't have been an issue. Maybe they thought "will give it one more shot and if no luck then we'll divert". I guess there will be an incident report come out eventually which will give us more insight.

Weather and fuel planning doesn't work on the basis of "there's a typhoon", let's carry an alternate. The forecast will be broken up into periods in which the cloud, visibility, wind etc will all be forecast. If any of those elements goes below the alternate criteria, and is there for the entire fuel endurance of the aircraft, then it will need to have an alternate available all the way to touchdown. But, if the base forecast is above the criteria, with periods below, then only sufficient fuel will be needed to ensure you can hold until outside of those periods. Additionally, you'll get into issues of the aircraft zero fuel weight, versus maximum landing weight, which may preclude carrying the fuel you want. In my operation, that meant that I'd move to reducing the zero fuel weight (i.e. offloading cargo, luggage, or passengers), but not all operators are amenable to this, and they may simply require that the fuel loading be legal, not necessarily sensible. That's why any mob who allow a flight planner to order the fuel is someone to avoid.

 

[jb747]

Are you a wings level or slight upwind wings down in final approach for crosswind landing
Difference Boeing vs Airbus ?

For the actual approach, or the landing?

The only aircraft that I've ever flown in which you used bank instead of drift to offset the wind during the approach was the A-4. But, it also didn't have a flare (at all) so landing it wasn't actually comparable to airliners.

None of the airliners (that I've flown) use bank to offset the wind, except in that gap between the flare and touchdown. The smallest of them (767) had quite a lot of clearance before a pod or wingtip scrape could happen, and it also had good controllability, so a small amount of bank could be used as part of the decrab manoeuver. Call it a max of about 5º. In the 747 scraping was much more of an issue, and whilst you could still use about 3º, you had to be much more careful with it. In reality both of these aircraft could be landed with all of the drift intact, so I tended to aim for getting rid of about half of the drift, and that gave me a result that limited bank or drift, and was comfortable enough. (I mean my comfort, not anyone down back).

In the 380, you could get away with a couple of degrees, but the issue there became the flight control system not letting you. It saw 2º of bank or less as a target of zero, and would actively try to reduce to that. That was because the FCS would change to 'flare law' at 100', which meant that pitch became the same as direct (so the FCS didn't interfere with your flare), but roll remained in normal law. Upshot was that it was best to just get it on to the ground quickly.

 

[MathNerd]

On Friday the 8th of August, flight SQ24 had a flight time of 19h 43m.
This flight is blocked at 18h 40m, so it was airborne for roughly an entire hour more than planned.

It appears that it took an Eastern route rather than directly North (Polar route). This could be due to the volcanic activity at Kilauea.

I wonder if that A350 ULR was stretched to its limits on that run. I've never seen the flight time get that near to 20 hours.
That's got to be VULR (Very Ultra Long Range)

 

[Rabs97]

Apologies if this has been asked before, I didn’t make it through all 947 pages of conversations…

What’s the best course you’d recommend for someone who’s never flown a plane? I’m not planning to become a pilot, just want to know a thing or two… you know, in case the apocalypse hits.

Most flying schools at the secondary airport in whatever city you live in (Bankstown for Sydney, Moorabbin for Melbourne etc) will offer a Trial Introductory flight where they take you up in a Cessna or similar for about an hour to give you a taste of what flying is about. If you desire to pursue further training beyond that they can fill you in on the details.

Otherwise there’s companies that run airline flight sims available for booking by the general public like Flight Experience, available in most cities, using a B737 sim or similar to give you a taste of jet flying.

 

[JustSlash]

Most flying schools at the secondary airport in whatever city you live in (Bankstown for Sydney, Moorabbin for Melbourne etc) will offer a Trial Introductory flight where they take you up in a Cessna or similar for about an hour to give you a taste of what flying is about. If you desire to pursue further training beyond that they can fill you in on the details.

Otherwise there’s companies that run airline flight sims available for booking by the general public like Flight Experience, available in most cities, using a B737 sim or similar to give you a taste of jet flying.

Thanks @Rabs97 ! will definitely be checking out these options

 

[Rabs97]

On Friday the 8th of August, flight SQ24 had a flight time of 19h 43m.
This flight is blocked at 18h 40m, so it was airborne for roughly an entire hour more than planned.

It appears that it took an Eastern route rather than directly North (Polar route). This could be due to the volcanic activity at Kilauea.

I wonder if that A350 ULR was stretched to its limits on that run. I've never seen the flight time get that near to 20 hours.
That's got to be VULR (Very Ultra Long Range)

SIN-JFK is 8,300nm on the great circle track. Most SIN-JFK flights are planned at about 8,600nm to avoid Russian airspace.

If they were heading further south around the volcano then that’s an extra hour’s flight, about 400 more nautical miles. The book range of the A350-900ULR is listed as 9,700nm but that’s not accounting for reserves, winds, increased weight, drag etc that’ll affect burn. I’d bet SQ had to do some weight restriction to operate their SQ24 flight much further south and get it to JFK without a fuel stop.

QF’s Sunrise SYD to LHR A350-1000 ULR is slated to have the same book range as SQ’s -900ULR, with 238 pax vs SQ’s 160. The GC track is 9,200nm so already it’s exceeding the -900ULR range limitations, but that takes it over the ME and Russia with obvious airspace limits. To skip Russia entirely and fly the great circle track over Alaska and the North Pole would be over 10,200nm.

 

[MathNerd]

SIN-JFK is 8,300nm on the great circle track. Most SIN-JFK flights are planned at about 8,600nm to avoid Russian airspace.

If they were heading further south around the volcano then that’s an extra hour’s flight, about 400 more nautical miles. The book range of the A350-900ULR is listed as 9,700nm but that’s not accounting for reserves, winds, increased weight, drag etc that’ll affect burn. I’d bet SQ had to do some weight restriction to operate their SQ24 flight much further south and get it to JFK without a fuel stop.

QF’s Sunrise SYD to LHR A350-1000 ULR is slated to have the same book range as SQ’s -900ULR, with 238 pax vs SQ’s 160. The GC track is 9,200nm so already it’s exceeding the -900ULR range limitations, but that takes it over the ME and Russia with obvious airspace limits. To skip Russia entirely and fly the great circle track over Alaska and the North Pole would be over 10,200nm.

Very informative - thank you.

It appears SQ24 has recently been taking the Eastwards route, for example see yesterday's and today's ones. That 400nm extra is quite a lot, especially when it needs to take off in SIN/WSSS with the extra fuel for that extra distance - they must have had to either deny cargo or prevent standby/last minute pax from boarding to allow some breathing room on the flight's weight.

I'll be flying this exact flight in about a month's time from now, so will be interesting to see which route it does take, and how long it stays airborne for!

18h 30m seems to be the floor of flight times with this new, longer, non-polar route, it'd be interesting to see what's the ceiling for it.

Always very interesting analysing these ultra long range flights - we're stretching the limits on what is technically and humanly possible!