Ask a Pilot anything....
Discussion
Brother D said:
Depends - once you enter all the variables, weight, air pressure (pressure altitude), temp, runway length, runway condition and a few other bits into the FMS, it will give you an answer as to the flex/power used, so as to give the correct safety margin vs least engine wear.
Recently took a flight where the take off was a bit concerning as the acceleration was comparable to that of a wheezy bus, and it has gone wrong a couple of times in the past - https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id...
A late addition, but the saddest example that I can recall was the MK 747 freighter somewhere in Canada.Recently took a flight where the take off was a bit concerning as the acceleration was comparable to that of a wheezy bus, and it has gone wrong a couple of times in the past - https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id...
V8LM said:
Good question and one it'll be interesting to hear the answer. I believe Sully has said he wanted to lift the noise more just before ditching but the A/C wouldn't let him.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that Sully himself credited a large part of their survival to the co-pilot going off checklist & deploying the auxiliary power unit spinny thing early on.Although obviously I'm happy to be corrected by those in the know...
Brother D said:
WilliamWoollard said:
How much of the engines available power is used for a typical take off of a jet liner?
Depends - once you enter all the variables, weight, air pressure (pressure altitude), temp, runway length, runway condition and a few other bits into the FMS, it will give you an answer as to the flex/power used, so as to give the correct safety margin vs least engine wear. Recently took a flight where the take off was a bit concerning as the acceleration was comparable to that of a wheezy bus, and it has gone wrong a couple of times in the past - https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id...
docp said:
Out of interest - what are the repercussions for the pilots in a non fatal but significant accident like this. Job loss? Retraining?
That will depend entirely on why the incident happened. If a pilot's actions were intentional and the outcome was as intended, then jail beckons. Of course, some organisations still jump to conclusions early on, but we live in more informed times now.
kurt535 said:
How reliable is the IRS and would it work without the GPS input or is that also vital?
It's a completely independent system.Some airports aren't, or weren't compliant with WGS-84 (Beijing/Shanghai spring to mind until recently), so we'd switch GPS off for take off.
This is done, (speaking for the 777) because when you push the TO/GA switch on take-off, the aircraft's computed position immediately defaults to the beginning of the take off runway. On a non-WGS84 compliant runway, this would cause a discrepancy between where the GPS thinks we are, and where we actually are. No biggie, but you'd get an annoying alert when you really don't want one.
After disabling GPS prior to T/O, the 777 would then use inertial as the primary position update source, until we were airborne, at which point it switched over to radio (DME/DME, typically) as it is more accurate.
Tony1963 said:
docp said:
Out of interest - what are the repercussions for the pilots in a non fatal but significant accident like this. Job loss? Retraining?
That will depend entirely on why the incident happened. If a pilot's actions were intentional and the outcome was as intended, then jail beckons. Of course, some organisations still jump to conclusions early on, but we live in more informed times now.
Testaburger said:
kurt535 said:
How reliable is the IRS and would it work without the GPS input or is that also vital?
It's a completely independent system.Some airports aren't, or weren't compliant with WGS-84 (Beijing/Shanghai spring to mind until recently), so we'd switch GPS off for take off.
This is done, (speaking for the 777) because when you push the TO/GA switch on take-off, the aircraft's computed position immediately defaults to the beginning of the take off runway. On a non-WGS84 compliant runway, this would cause a discrepancy between where the GPS thinks we are, and where we actually are. No biggie, but you'd get an annoying alert when you really don't want one.
After disabling GPS prior to T/O, the 777 would then use inertial as the primary position update source, until we were airborne, at which point it switched over to radio (DME/DME, typically) as it is more accurate.
Been on a few unfortunate flights that have had to divert for medical issues on-board.
For example, on a flight from Dubai to Manila, a passenger was taken ill and the captain immediately diverted to the nearest airport which was Dhaka (would not have been my first choice but . . . . .).
On a flight from Amsterdam to LAX, a passenger had a heart attack just west of Iceland, but we eventually landed in some remote part of Eastern Canada.
On a flight from Detroit to LAX, another heart attack but the pilot chose to continue to LAX.
If there are no medically trained passengers onboard - who determines how ill the passenger is ?
Who's is the decision to divert or not and how is the decision made where to divert to (I assume the Captain and based on the urgency of the situation) ?
For example, on a flight from Dubai to Manila, a passenger was taken ill and the captain immediately diverted to the nearest airport which was Dhaka (would not have been my first choice but . . . . .).
On a flight from Amsterdam to LAX, a passenger had a heart attack just west of Iceland, but we eventually landed in some remote part of Eastern Canada.
On a flight from Detroit to LAX, another heart attack but the pilot chose to continue to LAX.
If there are no medically trained passengers onboard - who determines how ill the passenger is ?
Who's is the decision to divert or not and how is the decision made where to divert to (I assume the Captain and based on the urgency of the situation) ?
Ayahuasca said:
Do airlines always have a monitoring base open that tracks all their flights / routinely communicates with aircraft in flight, etc, or are airliners normally left to their (and ATC) own devices ?
Yes, they have an 'operations centre' which tracks the flights, and are our point of contact for information or preferred diversion ports if it's not urgent, that kind of thing. They also receive automated messages from the aircraft about its status. I've had a couple of instances where they've told me there was something worth watching based on this feedback - I'd have been none the wiser if they hadn't! They can also patch us through to engineers, operations managers, Boeing etc if we need info.
They also serve as a centralised operational hub, so monitoring things like delays which may have a knock-on effect on connecting flights, or engineering issues which cause aircraft rotation issues.
halfpenny43 said:
Been on a few unfortunate flights that have had to divert for medical issues on-board.
For example, on a flight from Dubai to Manila, a passenger was taken ill and the captain immediately diverted to the nearest airport which was Dhaka (would not have been my first choice but . . . . .).
On a flight from Amsterdam to LAX, a passenger had a heart attack just west of Iceland, but we eventually landed in some remote part of Eastern Canada.
On a flight from Detroit to LAX, another heart attack but the pilot chose to continue to LAX.
If there are no medically trained passengers onboard - who determines how ill the passenger is ?
Who's is the decision to divert or not and how is the decision made where to divert to (I assume the Captain and based on the urgency of the situation) ?
Blimey, not flying with you!For example, on a flight from Dubai to Manila, a passenger was taken ill and the captain immediately diverted to the nearest airport which was Dhaka (would not have been my first choice but . . . . .).
On a flight from Amsterdam to LAX, a passenger had a heart attack just west of Iceland, but we eventually landed in some remote part of Eastern Canada.
On a flight from Detroit to LAX, another heart attack but the pilot chose to continue to LAX.
If there are no medically trained passengers onboard - who determines how ill the passenger is ?
Who's is the decision to divert or not and how is the decision made where to divert to (I assume the Captain and based on the urgency of the situation) ?
Most airlines (mine included) subscribe to a medical advice provider. There's a couple of them that dominate the market.
Essentially, if a passenger is unwell beyond 'normal' issues like motion sickness or headaches and such, we call them up.
They're the ones who provide instructions to the cabin crew on administering drugs, use of the defibrillator, that kind of thing. They'll also tell us to divert or not (and to where) - and in doing so, they assume all liability for it.
If we can't get hold of them, we can try our 24/7 duty doctor on the satphone, too.
Obviously if a passenger is clearly having a serious medical event like a heart attack, we'll start the diversion immediately in the hope that we were over-cautious.
Testaburger said:
halfpenny43 said:
Been on a few unfortunate flights that have had to divert for medical issues on-board.
For example, on a flight from Dubai to Manila, a passenger was taken ill and the captain immediately diverted to the nearest airport which was Dhaka (would not have been my first choice but . . . . .).
On a flight from Amsterdam to LAX, a passenger had a heart attack just west of Iceland, but we eventually landed in some remote part of Eastern Canada.
On a flight from Detroit to LAX, another heart attack but the pilot chose to continue to LAX.
If there are no medically trained passengers onboard - who determines how ill the passenger is ?
Who's is the decision to divert or not and how is the decision made where to divert to (I assume the Captain and based on the urgency of the situation) ?
Blimey, not flying with you!For example, on a flight from Dubai to Manila, a passenger was taken ill and the captain immediately diverted to the nearest airport which was Dhaka (would not have been my first choice but . . . . .).
On a flight from Amsterdam to LAX, a passenger had a heart attack just west of Iceland, but we eventually landed in some remote part of Eastern Canada.
On a flight from Detroit to LAX, another heart attack but the pilot chose to continue to LAX.
If there are no medically trained passengers onboard - who determines how ill the passenger is ?
Who's is the decision to divert or not and how is the decision made where to divert to (I assume the Captain and based on the urgency of the situation) ?
Most airlines (mine included) subscribe to a medical advice provider. There's a couple of them that dominate the market.
Essentially, if a passenger is unwell beyond 'normal' issues like motion sickness or headaches and such, we call them up.
They're the ones who provide instructions to the cabin crew on administering drugs, use of the defibrillator, that kind of thing. They'll also tell us to divert or not (and to where) - and in doing so, they assume all liability for it.
If we can't get hold of them, we can try our 24/7 duty doctor on the satphone, too.
Obviously if a passenger is clearly having a serious medical event like a heart attack, we'll start the diversion immediately in the hope that we were over-cautious.
speedtwelve said:
Some airlines have a proportion of cabin crew with paramedic training. Mate who was CC with BA had done so (and defib'd at least one passenger in the cruise. Oo-err).
Thanks both for your responses.I make over 100 flights a year mostly for work, and mostly in economy. Have done probably since 1997 on and off (and no I don't work in the airline or travel industry), so the likelihood of encountering an incident of some description is probably higher than average.
Captain has ultimate say in where and if, we divert, but that's not to say we don't butt heads with operations; it's a team effort .
As an example, I had a medical issue mid-Atlantic a few years back. We had the cabin crew passing reports to us as to the state of an unwell passenger, plus (by chance) two paramedics on board who were assisting.
We got in touch with the 24 hour medical centre we subscribe to, and were patched in on a three-way conversation between us, flight operations (London) and the doctors (USA).
The Doctors know what med's we have on board, so they can legally prescribe the administration of drugs to assist with a patient's condition. After monitoring, the paramedics on board said that the condition was worsening and they needed to get on the ground asap. Normally, passengers who are medically trained are generally destination-minded, as they know that diversions will disrupt them, but in this case, they said that the passenger needed to get to hospital, and combined with the symptoms passed on to our own med team, and in co-operation with operations, the decision was agreed to divert. While this was going on, we as pilots are obviously flying the aircraft, but also looking for suitable diversions (checking weather for a start; can we get in there? Familiarity, Runway length, Emergency facilities, Terrain issues, etc). In normal operations, we consider that all the time, but in this example, the options needed to be passed to ops and med team.
Once we'd all agreed that was the plan of action, then it's about us arranging the diversion, in this example we had to dump fuel as we were too heavy to land, let the passengers know, calculate landing distances, flap and brake settings and brief for an approach and landing (to name a few).
Once that's done, it becomes (for us) entirely routine. Fly the aircraft. Land, let the ground crew take control of the passenger.
It's a busy time, and even busier once the passenger is off, to refuel, and continue to our original destination.
Bloody long day out - by the time I got to the hotel bar, I'd been up for 24 hours. But entirely worth it; the passenger's life was saved and they were repatriated a few days later.
As an example, I had a medical issue mid-Atlantic a few years back. We had the cabin crew passing reports to us as to the state of an unwell passenger, plus (by chance) two paramedics on board who were assisting.
We got in touch with the 24 hour medical centre we subscribe to, and were patched in on a three-way conversation between us, flight operations (London) and the doctors (USA).
The Doctors know what med's we have on board, so they can legally prescribe the administration of drugs to assist with a patient's condition. After monitoring, the paramedics on board said that the condition was worsening and they needed to get on the ground asap. Normally, passengers who are medically trained are generally destination-minded, as they know that diversions will disrupt them, but in this case, they said that the passenger needed to get to hospital, and combined with the symptoms passed on to our own med team, and in co-operation with operations, the decision was agreed to divert. While this was going on, we as pilots are obviously flying the aircraft, but also looking for suitable diversions (checking weather for a start; can we get in there? Familiarity, Runway length, Emergency facilities, Terrain issues, etc). In normal operations, we consider that all the time, but in this example, the options needed to be passed to ops and med team.
Once we'd all agreed that was the plan of action, then it's about us arranging the diversion, in this example we had to dump fuel as we were too heavy to land, let the passengers know, calculate landing distances, flap and brake settings and brief for an approach and landing (to name a few).
Once that's done, it becomes (for us) entirely routine. Fly the aircraft. Land, let the ground crew take control of the passenger.
It's a busy time, and even busier once the passenger is off, to refuel, and continue to our original destination.
Bloody long day out - by the time I got to the hotel bar, I'd been up for 24 hours. But entirely worth it; the passenger's life was saved and they were repatriated a few days later.
Interestingly a friends wife who is a sister in a and e department had to help an ill passenger on a flight to Tenerife. She was not impressed at all with the medical kit carried (an Irish airline). So that brings on the question is there a minimum standard of medical kit that you have to carry?
As it was they ended up diverting, and she felt that with the right kit that was not so inevitable.
PS. Not so much as a thank you from the airline..
As it was they ended up diverting, and she felt that with the right kit that was not so inevitable.
PS. Not so much as a thank you from the airline..
speedtwelve said:
Some airlines have a proportion of cabin crew with paramedic training. Mate who was CC with BA had done so (and defib'd at least one passenger in the cruise. Oo-err).
At the risk of coming across as a pedantic t
t .... qualifying as a Paramedic takes at least three years full time, with a high degree of clinical skill and autonomy, and as a result they are paid similar rates to Doctors. As I understand it cabin crew have a sensible level of first aid training, higher than your average first aid at work course, which is A Good Thing, but not quite the same. Sorry, carry on 😊
5150 said:
Normally, passengers who are medically trained are generally destination-minded, as they know that diversions will disrupt them
We were on a flight to Mauritius or the Seychelles. There was the call: "Is there a Doctor on board?". My wife is a hospital consultant. She stuck her hand up. As she walked back to see the patient, the aircrew told her that the Captain needed an assessment as we'd have to divert to Somalia or the Yemen (somewhere that she really didn't want to go, anyway). It certainly coloured her view of the patient's needs! Thankfully, the patient had merely overindulged and was suffering a panic attack.
Tricuspid said:
speedtwelve said:
Some airlines have a proportion of cabin crew with paramedic training. Mate who was CC with BA had done so (and defib'd at least one passenger in the cruise. Oo-err).
At the risk of coming across as a pedantic tt .... qualifying as a Paramedic takes at least three years full time, with a high degree of clinical skill and autonomy, and as a result they are paid similar rates to Doctors. As I understand it cabin crew have a sensible level of first aid training, higher than your average first aid at work course, which is A Good Thing, but not quite the same. Sorry, carry on ??
5150 said:
Captain has ultimate say in where and if, we divert, but that's not to say we don't butt heads with operations; it's a team effort .
As an example, I had a medical issue mid-Atlantic a few years back. We had the cabin crew passing reports to us as to the state of an unwell passenger, plus (by chance) two paramedics on board who were assisting.
We got in touch with the 24 hour medical centre we subscribe to, and were patched in on a three-way conversation between us, flight operations (London) and the doctors (USA).
The Doctors know what med's we have on board, so they can legally prescribe the administration of drugs to assist with a patient's condition. After monitoring, the paramedics on board said that the condition was worsening and they needed to get on the ground asap. Normally, passengers who are medically trained are generally destination-minded, as they know that diversions will disrupt them, but in this case, they said that the passenger needed to get to hospital, and combined with the symptoms passed on to our own med team, and in co-operation with operations, the decision was agreed to divert. While this was going on, we as pilots are obviously flying the aircraft, but also looking for suitable diversions (checking weather for a start; can we get in there? Familiarity, Runway length, Emergency facilities, Terrain issues, etc). In normal operations, we consider that all the time, but in this example, the options needed to be passed to ops and med team.
Once we'd all agreed that was the plan of action, then it's about us arranging the diversion, in this example we had to dump fuel as we were too heavy to land, let the passengers know, calculate landing distances, flap and brake settings and brief for an approach and landing (to name a few).
Once that's done, it becomes (for us) entirely routine. Fly the aircraft. Land, let the ground crew take control of the passenger.
It's a busy time, and even busier once the passenger is off, to refuel, and continue to our original destination.
Bloody long day out - by the time I got to the hotel bar, I'd been up for 24 hours. But entirely worth it; the passenger's life was saved and they were repatriated a few days later.
Very informative and thanks for the detailed response.As an example, I had a medical issue mid-Atlantic a few years back. We had the cabin crew passing reports to us as to the state of an unwell passenger, plus (by chance) two paramedics on board who were assisting.
We got in touch with the 24 hour medical centre we subscribe to, and were patched in on a three-way conversation between us, flight operations (London) and the doctors (USA).
The Doctors know what med's we have on board, so they can legally prescribe the administration of drugs to assist with a patient's condition. After monitoring, the paramedics on board said that the condition was worsening and they needed to get on the ground asap. Normally, passengers who are medically trained are generally destination-minded, as they know that diversions will disrupt them, but in this case, they said that the passenger needed to get to hospital, and combined with the symptoms passed on to our own med team, and in co-operation with operations, the decision was agreed to divert. While this was going on, we as pilots are obviously flying the aircraft, but also looking for suitable diversions (checking weather for a start; can we get in there? Familiarity, Runway length, Emergency facilities, Terrain issues, etc). In normal operations, we consider that all the time, but in this example, the options needed to be passed to ops and med team.
Once we'd all agreed that was the plan of action, then it's about us arranging the diversion, in this example we had to dump fuel as we were too heavy to land, let the passengers know, calculate landing distances, flap and brake settings and brief for an approach and landing (to name a few).
Once that's done, it becomes (for us) entirely routine. Fly the aircraft. Land, let the ground crew take control of the passenger.
It's a busy time, and even busier once the passenger is off, to refuel, and continue to our original destination.
Bloody long day out - by the time I got to the hotel bar, I'd been up for 24 hours. But entirely worth it; the passenger's life was saved and they were repatriated a few days later.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff