The great big "ask an airline pilot" thread!

smurfjed · 08-11-2014 9:59am

The more recent UPS6 flight in Dubai showed just how rapidly a fire can destroy an aircraft, it also showed how single failures can have catastrophic consequences, in this case the failure of an air conditioning pack. I believe that from the time the crew were warned of the fire to the death of the Captain due to a lack of available oxygen and toxic fume inhalation was about 9 minutes, he was no longer alive when the aircraft went over Dubai airport high and fast.
I totally respect the actions of Dublin ATC and emergency services, so bloody what that "1000's were kept waiting on the ground and in the air" (DM Again:)) At least they were safe.

I am interested in reading the report about why they didn't land on 16.

fr336 · 08-11-2014 10:03am

smurfjed wrote: »

The more recent UPS6 flight in Dubai showed just how rapidly a fire can destroy an aircraft, it also showed how single failures can have catastrophic consequences, in this case the failure of an air conditioning pack. I believe that from the time the crew were warned of the fire to the death of the Captain due to a lack of available oxygen and toxic fume inhalation was about 9 minutes, he was no longer alive when the aircraft went over Dubai airport high and fast.
I totally respect the actions of Dublin ATC and emergency services, so bloody what that "1000's were kept waiting on the ground and in the air" (DM Again:)) At least they were safe.

I am interested in reading the report about why they didn't land on 16.

This a trillion times.

Growler!!! · 08-11-2014 12:03pm

smurfjed wrote: »

I am interested in reading the report about why they didn't land on 16.

I was working that night and heard it all unfold. (Listening on box2). When they were offered 16 they asked about runway length, decision alt and missed approach. My presumption was that they didn't have or could not see the approach plates properly. There was a little confusion over runway lenght as it was passed to them in meters and took a while to convert to feet by ATC.
I heard them carry out the missed approach and they were told to climb to 3000 feet, I believe they were at 2500 feet or so at that stage.

Someone here said that she sounded stressed which is understandable. On some transmissions where questions were asked by ATC there was a pause and a male voice could be heard in the background then a response given, I presume this was the capt as pilot flying. I've been in a similar situation where decisions were being made by the capt and I was passing the info on as pilot monitoring.

A good job by all involved, with a safe and successful outcome.

Complaining about other people being inconvenienced by having to hold etc is horse sh@t, they would have been even more inconvenienced if there wasn't a successful landing. The rules of the air are derived from the rules of the sea and the biggest unwritten rule is that you always help your fellow seafarer or aviator in trouble.

tricky D · 08-11-2014 5:13pm

Growler!!! wrote: »

I was working that night and heard it all unfold. (Listening on box2). When they were offered 16 they asked about runway length, decision alt and missed approach. My presumption was that they didn't have or could not see the approach plates properly. There was a little confusion over runway lenght as it was passed to them in meters and took a while to convert to feet by ATC.
I heard them carry out the missed approach and they were told to climb to 3000 feet, I believe they were at 2500 feet or so at that stage.

They were a few miles out when they requested the change. It came shortly after a Shamrock made an enquiry about using 10, for whatever that is worth.

As for stress, well it was a stressful situation with smoke, weather, checklists, local unfamiliarity and the like in play, but that doesn't mean it was 'bad' stress. Sounded more like fairly normal stress given the situation.

de biz · 08-11-2014 6:46pm

It was the right decision to use 10 specially considering the runway surface was wet.
Crew did not sound stressed at all.In fact the PF sounded reassuring,even to the point where he deescalated ATC by advising on finals that it would be a normal landing.

smurfjed · 08-11-2014 7:04pm

I really don't want to second guess what the crew did, but for the sake of general discussion, can i ask why you think this?

It was the right decision to use 10 specially considering the runway surface was wet.

I thought that there was close to a 17 kt cross wind on RWY10

Tenger · 08-11-2014 10:33pm

Noxegon wrote: »

This accident is very familiar to me........met with the investigator in charge Vic Gerden, and have the full report on my shelf.

Vic was unequivocal about the fact that the plane would _not_ have been able to make it to an airport even if the pilots had begun an immediate descent at the first sign of trouble.......

Interesting to hear that.

smurfjed · 10-11-2014 9:38am

WSSS 02C- USE WHEN NO SHIP IN CHANNEL OR SHIPS IN CHANNEL
WITH MAST ELEV LESS THAN141M. ATC WILL ADVZ MAST
HEIGHT WHEN EXCEED 141M.

I always loved this note on takeoff charts for Singapore, the aircraft's takeoff weight will be based on if there is a ship in the takeoff path or not, it was kinda funny

I believe that Boston has something similar. Scary to think that for the Classic B747, these things were pertinent.

ProfessorPlum · 10-11-2014 10:01am

smurfjed wrote: »

I always loved this note on takeoff charts for Singapore, the aircraft's takeoff weight will be based on if there is a ship in the takeoff path or not, it was kinda funny

I believe that Boston has something similar. Scary to think that for the Classic B747, these things were pertinent.

Boston 04R approach minimums are increased when there are tall ships in port area. If they're taller than 144ft only a visual approach is allowed. It's a very disturbing view flying it - it really doesn't look right at all!

homerjay2005 · 10-11-2014 12:31pm

martinsvi wrote: »

eh... here we go again with the ability to determine people's nationality by looking at them.

dont see anybody saying they based peoples nationality due to their looks, but ill let you have your moment!

however, you can tell pretty quickly where a person is from, due to their accent and quite often their name. for example, is somebody is called Oisin, Sinead or Aine, theres a good chance they are Irish before they open their mouth. likewise a Pawel, Agnieska or Marta is likely to be Polish, with a Raluca, Alexandra or Silva being from Eastern Europe, specifically Romania area. its not generalisation or racially based as you appear to be hinting, but simple conclusions based on tradition, history and experience. in fact, many people can tell where others are from based on their dresscode, their complexion and how they act - youd pick out Irish or Polish people out of a crowd no problem for example.

personally, ive noticed an increase in the number of Irish air hostesses lately on Ryanair and its safe to say that about 90% of Aer Lingus cabin crew are Irish.

smurfjed · 10-11-2014 1:26pm

I'm totally lost

:) Are we still on a OwenC tangent?

islanderre · 10-11-2014 4:24pm

Afternoon folks,
En route to Dub to catch the Emirates Dubai flight this evening and onwards to Melbourne.....
Anyone care to cast their professional eye on the weather forecast for the voyage...... I enjoy turbulence (moderate) but my fellow traveller is not keen on it at all.
Thanks,
Islanderre

smurfjed · 10-11-2014 5:59pm

This is the great circle route, no guarantee that EK will follow it or at the Flight Level, but it should give you an indication. But regardless of this chart, always keep your seatbelt on

martinsvi · 10-11-2014 6:27pm

homerjay2005 wrote: »

you can tell pretty quickly where a person is from, due to their accent and quite often their name

all I'm saying is don't assume anything. It's that confidence that get's you in trouble. Now please, we let that topic die for a reason, don't try to light it on fire again

islanderre wrote: »

I enjoy turbulence (moderate) but my fellow traveller is not keen on it at all.

liar!

islanderre · 10-11-2014 7:20pm

This is the great circle route, no guarantee that EK will follow it or at the Flight Level, but it should give you an indication. But regardless of this chart, always keep your seatbelt on

[/QUOTE]

Cheers smurfjed,
Will remain belted throughout...... Well tired too so hope to be pumping zzzzzzzzz all the way.

Islanderre

smurfjed · 10-11-2014 7:23pm

Get some ear-plugs and eyeshades, they really improve the quality of rest

Locker10a · 15-11-2014 1:52am

homerjay2005 wrote: »

dont see anybody saying they based peoples nationality due to their looks, but ill let you have your moment!

however, you can tell pretty quickly where a person is from, due to their accent and quite often their name. for example, is somebody is called Oisin, Sinead or Aine, theres a good chance they are Irish before they open their mouth. likewise a Pawel, Agnieska or Marta is likely to be Polish, with a Raluca, Alexandra or Silva being from Eastern Europe, specifically Romania area. its not generalisation or racially based as you appear to be hinting, but simple conclusions based on tradition, history and experience. in fact, many people can tell where others are from based on their dresscode, their complexion and how they act - youd pick out Irish or Polish people out of a crowd no problem for example.

personally, ive noticed an increase in the number of Irish air hostesses lately on Ryanair and its safe to say that about 90% of Aer Lingus cabin crew are Irish.

Yeah there is definitely truth in what you say ! People constantly think I'm English! Untill they hear me speak or find out my name!!
There were always Irish hostesses in ryanair but just scattered all over Europe !!

FuzzyDunlop100 · 16-11-2014 10:51pm

Question, I was listening to Dublin ATC today when a Delta 767 was lined up on runway 10. ATC gave clearance for takeoff and then said something along the lines of,

"...Continue on centerline up to flight level 90 and contact....."

What does "continue on centerline" mean?

Thanks in advance

ProfessorPlum · 16-11-2014 11:02pm

FuzzyDunlop100 wrote: »

Question, I was listening to Dublin ATC today when a Delta 767 was lined up on runway 10. ATC gave clearance for takeoff and then said something along the lines of,

"...Continue on centerline up to flight level 90 and contact....."

What does "continue on centerline" mean?

Thanks in advance

Was probably something like 'continue on extended centreline to FL90' which basically means fly straight ahead to FL90, which is different to the standard instrument departure that they were probably given in their domestic departure clearance. You'll often hear 'fly runway heading' or 'fly runway track' which is essentially the same thing, plus or minus the correction for wind.

KoolKid · 19-11-2014 1:05am

When an aircraft is on approach you often hear ATC say information is .... Alpha ,Bravo,Charlie etc. It always seems to progress alphabetically . What does it mean?

smurfjed · 19-11-2014 1:17am

Not sure if you can hear it on LIVE ATC, but the ATIS information for the airport is expressed in terms of time and a letter, so they are basically checking that they crew have the latest information

flazio · 19-11-2014 9:28am

What do the letters "Q.N.H." stand for in an Air Traffic control conversation. I know it's to do with the air pressure on the barometer but I don't know what the letters mean.

eatmyshorts · 19-11-2014 9:33am

flazio wrote: »

What do the letters "Q.N.H." stand for in an Air Traffic control conversation. I know it's to do with the air pressure on the barometer but I don't know what the letters mean.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_code#Aviation

Good explanation there.

smurfjed · 19-11-2014 11:27am

My understanding is that Q codes were from the morse code era, the Q stood for Question so that the recipient knew that what to expect.

Not sure if they still do it, but we had to do an actual morse code sending / receiving test for our commercial licences.

Growler!!! · 19-11-2014 3:49pm

smurfjed wrote: »

My understanding is that Q codes were from the morse code era, the Q stood for Question so that the recipient knew that what to expect.

Not sure if they still do it, but we had to do an actual morse code sending / receiving test for our commercial licences.

You are correct. Q codes were used initially in Wireless Telephony (morse code) for ship to shore communications. Each 3 letter Q code would signify a question or reply which had substantially more words/letters in it than the code itself. The reason for this was that messages sent were charged per word/letter at the time. Morse code was eventually phased out in the maritime role in 2000.

I never had to send morse "live" as in '97 our fleet was fitted with the more modern radio equipment (GMDSS) but I used to be able to Tx/Rx at 16 words a minute for exam purposes.

There is no longer a requirement to learn morse for ATPL or CPL issue, also the code is printed on our charts. But knowledge of it always helps:D

islanderre · 23-11-2014 12:57pm

Morning all,

Just after watching the Autoland BA video posted on the video thread.
Quick question for ye; at approx 150 AGL; the comment was made that the decision height was 50 AGL....... so What I'm wondering is if the pilot was flying it manually; he / she would of gone around at the 50 AGL level if the runway was not in sight.... is this right????
Another question is; as the aircraft was on autopilot / autoland; is the decision height of 50 AGL is null and void????

Last but not least; would major carriers like Ryanair & Aer Lingus maintain a % of the fleet as Autoland capable or would all the fleet be capable???

Thanks all...

bkehoe · 23-11-2014 5:00pm

A Cat3 approach (which this would have been if the DH is 50ft) must be seen through to an autoland. Any failure of systems would result in a go around, which depending on the failure could end up being manually flown. If one had a failure at the last second with the runway in sight it wouldn't be illegal to complete the landing manually but a go around is preferred as the visual cues to properly judge the flare wouldnt exist in poor visibility.

Cat2 (100ft DH, 300m RVR minimum) approaches may result in a manual landing, but many airlines will mandate that they are treated the same as a Cat3 approach and must be flown as an auto land (a case where company SOPs are more restrictive than the law).

bkehoe · 23-11-2014 5:05pm

Oh and at the approach minimums (A MDA, DA, or DH!), irrespective of auto or manual flight, one must go around if the required visual references are not in sight.

I imagine most airlines would try to keep all their fleet CAT3 enabled...mine does anyway. Sometimes various systems defects may lead to aircraft being dispatched as CAT1 only, but we would know beforehand and could request a different aircraft it it looked like we needed CAT3 capabilities. Often after some kind of maintenance a practice autoland is required in the interests of ensuring safety and this must be done in good weather conditions before the aircraft is certified for autolands again as well.

ProfessorPlum · 24-11-2014 8:23pm

bkehoe wrote: »

A Cat3 approach (which this would have been if the DH is 50ft) must be seen through to an autoland. Any failure of systems would result in a go around, which depending on the failure could end up being manually flown. If one had a failure at the last second with the runway in sight it wouldn't be illegal to complete the landing manually but a go around is preferred as the visual cues to properly judge the flare wouldnt exist in poor visibility.

Just a slight correction... A CAT 3 approach must be planned to an autoland, but in the case of any failures resulting in a loss of CAT 3 capability, it can result in either a go around or a manual landing providing the required visual references are available (or of course down grade to a CAT 2 landing if that is still available)

Poulgorm · 29-11-2014 6:11pm

Why are so many military transport planes propeller driven? I see that the new Airbus military transport plane has propellers - photo of it recently in the papers, in RAF colours. It's to replace the Hercules aircraft that they have (also propeller driven).

Tenger · 29-11-2014 7:46pm

Poulgorm wrote: »

Why are so many military transport planes propeller driven? I see that the new Airbus military transport plane has propellers - photo of it recently in the papers, in RAF colours. It's to replace the Hercules aircraft that they have (also propeller driven).

It based on required capability. Transports do not require the high speed of combat aircraft. In addition props are a little lighter on cost and maintenance so are more suited to logistical aircraft. Transport aircraft may often operate from improvised and/or rough air strips, this is something that jets cannot do (due to debris ingestion issues)

Poulgorm · 29-11-2014 8:23pm

Thank you for the concise reply

adlima · 17-12-2014 3:38pm

Hi guys. I have often wondered about the process that the big airlines use when assigning aircraft to routes. Is it mostly automated or is it more of a manual job? I'm guessing that aircraft are not assigned too far in advance taking into consideration unexpected maintenance issues, etc? It seems like a massive headache for the people responsible. Thanks in advance.

smurfjed · 17-12-2014 5:24pm

Until relatively recently we had people in a department called "Operations Control Centre" who would assign aircraft by hand, they had this massive continuous roll of paper that showed a 24 hour timeline. It certainly wasn't the most efficient method but it worked. This was replaced by software produced by a company called Sabre Aviation Solutions, the automated system allows interaction with crewing, maintenance, marketing and dispatch software, so a change made by one department is immediately reflected on the other systems. Our aircraft utilisation increased dramatically.

Tenger · 18-12-2014 12:56pm

smurfjed wrote: »

Until relatively recently we had people in a department called "Operations Control Centre" who would assign aircraft by hand, they had this massive continuous roll of paper that showed a 24 hour timeline. It certainly wasn't the most efficient method but it worked. This was replaced by software produced by a company called Sabre Aviation Solutions.......

I did this myself for short time. Was very interesting but assignments where influenced mostly by maintenance requirements ("needs to finish early to go to hanger and/or needs to start late after hanger visit", "A check due get it home tonight", "A/C pack U/S, don't put on route with mountains")

owenc · 21-12-2014 6:40pm

How many different variations of the Ryanair livery's are there? Just keep seeing winglets with different themes.

smurfjed · 22-12-2014 1:36am

On the way home so the year is done.... grand total this year of 166 hours flying, thats low even by my standards. So how much did you guys fly in 2014?

Tenger · 22-12-2014 1:58am

A little over 800 since Jan 1st.....got approx another 25 block hours planned before Dec 31st

braddun · 22-12-2014 2:04am

do you know how to glide your plane if you run out of petrol

I read they are going to teach it to commercial pilots

Growler!!! · 22-12-2014 2:24am

740 hrs, low by comparison to other years but moved seats, base twice and a new variant.

Growler!!! · 22-12-2014 2:28am

braddun wrote: »

do you know how to glide your plane if you run out of petrol

I read they are going to teach it to commercial pilots

Ha ha, the writer of the article you read was talking out their arse. Perhaps a link to the said article would enlighten us all:D

martinsvi · 22-12-2014 11:49am

smurfjed wrote: »

So how much did you guys fly in 2014?

*looks into logbook* whooping 8 hours and 39 minutes... I did lot's more as a passenger thou

MoeJay · 22-12-2014 1:41pm

Just shy of 555hrs with one trip left...of course there was a conversion course in there!

bkehoe · 22-12-2014 2:26pm

smurfjed wrote: »

So how much did you guys fly in 2014?

840 so far, and 25 more scheduled before the end of the year.

OzCam · 25-12-2014 11:06pm

smurfjed wrote: »

On the way home so the year is done.... grand total this year of 166 hours flying, thats low even by my standards. So how much did you guys fly in 2014?

Is that hours on duty, in the cockpit or actually Pilot Flying? Does it include simulator time or all the time you guys have to spend being tested? How is it defined?

owenc · 26-12-2014 1:47am

Did the aer lingus planes overnight in america saying they didn't go there today?

smurfjed · 26-12-2014 12:52pm

Is that hours on duty

I wish it was Duty Hours, then i would have the easiest job in the world

But the way that it works is something like this, report 2 hours before expected departure, 1.5 hours flying time, 6 hours waiting for same guy, 1.5 hours flying, drop off, reposition the aircraft and then 30 minutes after that we are off duty, so for 3 hours flying we can do 12.5 hours duty

If its just a drop off, then if drops down to about 6.5 hours for 3 hours flying.

I'm sure that some of the others are required to record their actual duty time for the year, but we don't have duty limits so i don't worry about it.

eatmyshorts · 26-12-2014 2:08pm

868 hours so far this year. Got another 31 scheduled before the 31st.

Growler!!! · 26-12-2014 2:09pm

Here in JAA/EASA land our yearly duty hours cannot exceed 2000. Flight hours cannot exceed 900 hours. On average we do 75 hours actual stick and rudder bum in seat time a month. Again this doesn't include report times, standbys and generally hanging around for ops to make decisions time:D

eatmyshorts · 26-12-2014 2:10pm

OzCam wrote: »

Is that hours on duty, in the cockpit or actually Pilot Flying? Does it include simulator time or all the time you guys have to spend being tested? How is it defined?

Block hours is time between pushback and engine shutdown.
Duty hours are from report from duty till released.
Simulator time is not included.

The great big "ask an airline pilot" thread!

Comments