The great big "ask an airline pilot" thread!

I think they do it in case of an emergency, so they can try and save the helicopter and the expensive equipment underneath it, if they have to get on the ground quickly. It's usually when they are low and slow, even when they are over water they seem to have the gear down.

- Sukhoi fighter aircraft the Indonesian Air Force again forced landing of a foreign aircraft.

Types of private jet Gulfstream IV departs from Singapore to Darwin Australia before heading to the final destination Brisbane.

"The plane was forced to land because the crew had to be checked by the personnel of the Air Force because it was caught entering Indonesian airspace without the full consent form documents the Flight Clearance to enter the sovereign territory of Indonesia," said Kadispen Air Force, Air commodore Hadi Tjahjanto, Monday (3/11).

This aircraft had tried to escape at high speed but still can ambushed by Sukhoi flight at a distance of 150 km northeast of Kupang at an altitude of 41 thousand feet and a speed of 450 kts from Napier.

Raid carried out under the control of Pangkosek Hanudnas II, military Marsma Tatang Herlyansah in Hanudnas II Sector Operations Center in Makassar, with full Pangkohanudnas under the command of Air Vice Marshal TNI Hadiyan Sumintaatmaja of the National Air Defense Operations Center at Halim air base.

The plane departed from Singapore and Singapore starting suspected not have permission to enter the territory of Indonesia letters by Kosek Hanudnas I Halim since airspace across the Riau archipelago and into Borneo route M-774 flight to Australia.

Air Force immediately deploy 2 Su-30. Had been a romp with the speed of sound before the pilots managed to force the Air Force jet landed in Kupang Eltari Lanud.

Probably a poor translation from Bahasa, but you get the gist.

Four Air France cabin crew members suffered concussion when a flight from Paris to New York hit severe turbulence shortly after take-off on Tuesday.
The airline confirmed flight AF006 from Charles de Gaulle Airport to JFK Airport ‘encountered strong turbulence’ at the beginning of the cruise phase.
It says the plane’s captain decided to abort the transatlantic journey and return to Paris, where the superjumbo jet landed safely just before 4.30pm local time.

Interesting to note that two of the last four severe turbulence events were with A380's.(AF 04th Nov / SQ 18 Oct) The other two were also Airbus aircraft 333/346.

Billie1b, now your wife has a good reason to stay off the aircraft

smurfjed wrote: »

Interesting to note that two of the last four severe turbulence events were with A380's.(AF 04th Nov / SQ 18 Oct) The other two were also Airbus aircraft 333/346.

Smurfjed, where do you get the most uptodate info on such incidents and is it only available to the aviation industry?

Tenger wrote: »

Normally allowed over land or sea. The priority is getting that aircraft on the ground. The infamous SwissAir crash (1999?) might have made it down safely if the flight hadn't loitered over the sea to dump fuel. They took too long to begin approach and the flight deck was consumed by smoke and fumes.

Most of the fuel would vapourise but chances are that the car owners under the jettison would find a slight residue on their vehicles afterwards.

Close - 1998. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111

down safely if the flight hadn't loitered over the sea to dump fuel

My recollection of this was that he was dumping fuel to get down to a performance limited landing weight, so he felt that he didn't have an option. Following this accident, manufacturers started providing "inflight landing distance" charts rather than just the "preflight landing distance charts", this would enable crews to use the whole runway length for calculating the landing weight.

roundymac wrote: »

I remember seeing one of those Discovery type docu-drama's which stated that even if he had tried a straight in approach he would not have made it when they compared his actual flying time to what it would have been for a straight in approach.
Open to correction.

The wiki article linked to above says that too, though you can never be too careful with wiki...

J.

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.

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.

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 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!

I'm totally lost :) Are we still on a OwenC tangent?

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

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