Quote:
Originally Posted by scottc25
I remember the days when Delta flew 767s between TPA and ATL. Nothing like taking 45 minutes to board a 1 hour flight. Looks like it was just cargo loads that required that big of a plane.
I know that when Delta first started taking deliveries of the Boeing 777, it initially made runs between Atlanta and Florida. I had heard that this was sort of a shake-out phase for the new airplane type. There were a lot of new crews that needed time in the plane, and there were logistics related to the new type that had to be worked out.
Quote:
Flying LAS to TPA yesterday through SAT (thanks SWA for getting rid of the weekday directs in January!) we taxi'ed to the runway and drove right back. I was half paying attention with eyes closed and music on and thought the taxi was awfully long for LAS. I guess a warning light came on, something with a battery (for the CPU). They had to swap out.
So wait 15 for maintenance to get there and decide they have to shut power down requiring everyone off the plane. They say it's OK to leave stuff on the plane. Wait about 45 and 'surprise' we need a new plane. Nothing like having everyone go on, get stuff, and get back off, all at the same time. They did it by groups and it took nearly 45 minutes to get that accomplished.
Haven't had a bad travel day like that in a while. 3 hour delay total.
If you fly enough, you'll encounter one of those horrible travel days sooner or later. I've had my share and the part where I have to explain things to my passengers is not something I take lightly. My first principle of passenger communication: don't lie.
Here's an example of a situation I encountered recently. It turned out okay, but was within four minutes of being a PR disaster with my passengers.
On Sunday, January 5th, I began a three day trip with a flight from JFK-LAX in a 767. We spent the night downtown at the lovely Westin Bonaventure Hotel. On day two, we were scheduled to fly a 757 to Mexico City and back to LAX. Being my first time to MEX as Captain on the 757, I had to have a Special Airport Qualification (SAQ) checkout. (MEX is one of several airports needing this special certification, due to several factors, including the complicated arrival and approach procedures; the extremely high terrain in Mexico which requires special engine-out procedures; and the demands of ATC.)
So, on this day I had a Line Validation Pilot (LVP) in the right seat. His job was to go over all the special considerations and generally be my "seeing-eye" FO. Because I was his first checkout, we also had along a senior LVP riding in the jumpseat whose job was to watch and then certify the other guy as an LVP. So, one guy checking me and the other guy checking the checker.
That aspect of the round trip went great. I was well prepared and the LVP did a great job in imparting the local wisdom and tricks of the trade, which I found very useful. A lot of this is just covering what to expect and the kind of curve balls you might encounter from ATC.
Okay, so now I get to the part of the trip which was dicey. The flight in was uneventful. I even saw the volcanoes south of the field, which were active that day (smoke coming from the cones). We loaded up to head back to LAX. During pushback we started one engine and then disconnected from the pushback tug and taxied out.
There weren't many planes in line, so I called for the second engine to be started. But this engine did not stabilize as it's supposed to do. The N1 (fan speed) was at about 52% rather than the normal 20% or so that's normal. The EGT (Exhaust Gas Temperature) was at 465°C and climbing when it should have been in the 300s.
We all looked at this with disbelief for a few seconds before deciding to shutdown the engine. Outside of the sim, where we deal with start malfunctions all the time in training, these engines start normally about 99.99% of the time. We checked our status screens to make sure we hadn't exceeded any limitations and then we got in touch with maintenance to report the issue. We obviously had to return to the gate, and we were directed to a maintenance ramp where AeroMexico personnel parked us.
It was quickly determined that the problem was in the EEC (Electronic Engine Control), which is essentially a computer which monitors the engine and controls fuel to the engine. One of the major benefits of the EEC is to protect against certain engine exceedances. You might expect that the EEC was a small computer component, like a motherboard in a desktop computer. But this is a 1970s design and the EEC is more like the size of a breadbox with inputs from various pressure and temperature sensors.
I figured we would have to cancel the flight and wait for a new EEC to be flown in from Atlanta. But luckily for us, there was another one of our 757s at Mexico City which was being worked on by some Atlanta mechanics. This crew of mechanics was able to cannbalize the EEC from that plane and install it on our engine.
The first estimate I got from the mechanics was that it could take up to three hours for the repair, so I began talking to Operations about getting buses sent to the plane to take the passengers off. We also got the ball rolling on re-booking passengers. There were two more Delta flights to LAX that day, but obviously they couldn't take all 200 of our passengers.
At this point, the mechanics gave me a revised estimate of one hour, so I decided to not deplane. During the whole time the mechanics were working on the engine, I was going through the cabin and talking to our passengers, trying to allay their concerns. Some people were nervous flyers and I explained that the engine was fine and tried explaining in layman terms what component was being replaced and I assured them that safety was paramount and that I certainly wouldn't take the plane in the air if I wasn't 100% confident in the repair. Other passengers were more concerned about their connections. One guy had an 11:30 pm flight to Hong Kong.
I used one of my old mantras when talking to passengers, something I heard from my first flight instructor: "It's always better to be on the ground withing you were in the air than to be in the air wishing you were on the ground." I get a lot of agreement with that sentiment. I generally find that passengers can be very understanding about mechanical issues if they at least feel that they're not being lied to.
But now we get to part two of this scenario.
The mechanics successfully replaced the EEC and we did a quick engine start check and everything looked great. The logbook was signed off and we talked to our dispatcher to ensure that we still have a flight plan in the system, and we got a little fuel added to bring us back up to the flight plan amount.
We got pushed back and started the engine. All is good. The tug disconnects and I wave off the ground crew. Then we call for taxi clearance and we're told that there is no flight plan for us. So now we spend a 15-20 minute evolution to get a flight plan filed and then get our clearance from ATC. All the while this is going on the clock is ticking on our total flight time for the day.
FAA rules limit how long a pilot can be on duty between rest periods. The absolute maximum is 16 hours and we weren't even close on that. It was about 5 pm and we were good until about 2 am.
But FAA rules also limit how much flying can be done during a duty period. The absolute maximum under current regs is 9 hours (it used to be 8 but FARs were revised within the last decade and now allow slightly more under certain conditions of rest.) Anytime you move the aircraft with the
intent to fly, whether or not you actually takeoff, applies to this total time.
Our flight from LAX was 3:47, block to block. Then we had our start anomaly and it was 27 minutes from the time of pushback until we shutdown on the maintenance ramp. This 27 minutes counts towards our flight time because we had pushed back with the intention of flying. So now we're at 4:14 total time.
[Let me know when this gets tedious. How many of you are still even reading this?]
Okay, so our flight plan has a
flight time on it (the actual time in the air from wheels up to wheels down). I can't remember what it was for this leg offhand, but for this discussion, let's say it's 3:38. That means we've got to takeoff before our total accumulated flight time for the day exceeds 5:22. You remember from above that we were at 4:14, so I've got 1:08 to get off the ground. Well, we already ate up 20 minutes of that getting the clearance and now we are faced with the ground delays at MEX which are common. At one point, we sat in one spot for about 20 minutes without moving an inch.
The situation was flagged by company software and we were discussing it with our dispatcher via ACARS, trying to nail down exactly when we had to get airborne. While we were still #5 for takeoff, and nothing seemed to be moving, we determined that we had 11 minutes to get airborne or else we'd have to return to the gate and this crew would be pumpkins. I told the ground controller our situation and he did not sound optimistic. I was already dreading the news I'd have to give our passengers. They had accepted the mechanical delay with civility but I had no illusions how the crew timing would be received. I couldn't really explain it to them...you see how tedious this can be. Your eyes are probably glazed over by now. I would have a revolt on my hands and I'm sure they would think that we somehow purposely engineered this cancellation. I'd rather face an engine fire on short final than have to deliver this news.
Some of you might be asking, "Well, couldn't you speed up in the air and shave some time off that 3:36 flight time?" Well, first of all, for a leg of this distance you'd be lucky to save 5 minutes by speeding up. But, secondly and most important, this kind of fudging is simply not allowed by the FAA, otherwise where would you draw the line? One minute? 7 minutes? So you have to go with the flight planned number.
The second question: "Couldn't you lie about your takeoff time to make it work?" This was probably done occasionally in the days before ACARS and automatic time reporting, but it's not possible any more. Our OUT time (when we leave the gate) is reported, followed by our OFF time (when we become airborne), ON time (when we land), and our IN time (when the beacon is off and the door is opened at the gate).
If we violate this flight time limit regulation, we are subject to action by the FAA (suspension or revocation of our license) and the company could face a substantial fine.
So how did we get airborne with 4 minutes to spare? Well, our dispatcher advised us that they were in communication with MEX airport managers, so maybe that sped things up. But it's not like we cut the line to move up. For some reason (and maybe it was that communication from the company to the airport manager), the controller started moving the traffic out and planes began taking off with about a minute and a half between departures.
I couldn't believe it! We applied takeoff power with only 4 minutes to spare and were on our way back to a nice layover in downtown L.A. The passengers on this flight never knew how close we came to cancellation.
Last edited by W0X0F; 01-24-2020 at 11:44 PM.
Reason: in before tl;dr
