# Feats of Awesomeness



## Colin Parkinson (17 Oct 2012)

well we can now add the 777 to the possible list, perhaps Air Canada will bid on Search and Rescue?

_Because of the remote location, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority asked two airliners passing over the man's GPS position to confirm his whereabouts.

An Air Canada Boeing 777 flying from Vancouver diverted from its course to check on the distressed yacht. Air Canada said its plane swooped down at about 1,200 metres while the crew peered out using binoculars borrowed from passengers.

Air Canada spokesman Peter Fitzpatrick said Tuesday the crew and a number of passengers aboard flight AC033 spotted the boat and advised authorities of its location. He said the yachtsman was subsequently rescued. He said the airline commends the crew and passengers.

"The pilots immediately determined they had sufficient fuel to undertake this, and headed out to the remote area which was over fairly rough seas. After apprising the customers onboard that we would assist as we were the only aircraft in the immediate vicinity, all onboard became involved in the search efforts," Fitzpatrick said.

"The crew borrowed binoculars from customers and also engaged those sitting on the right hand side of the aircraft to help look. As our aircraft flew over the area at 4,000 feet, a reflection from a mirror shining upwards was spotted and the crew saw the yacht in question, de-masted with a person standing — which was confirmed by a number of passengers."_
http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Canada+crew+passengers+help+locate+yacht+distress+Australia/7403678/story.html


----------



## karl28 (18 Oct 2012)

Verry good story to read on the above article about the 777 well done to all involved


----------



## Dash8plt (18 Oct 2012)

Good on the crew of the 777. Good thing they didn't plow-in. That would have been a PR nightmare for AC.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Oct 2012)

Dash8plt said:
			
		

> Good on the crew of the 777. Good thing they didn't plow-in. That would have been a PR nightmare for AC.


    ???

I must have missed the Flight Safety reports on Boeing 777s' tendency to "plow-in" whenever they're below 4000ft....

But in addition to the PR nightmare, the crew's embarrassment and the passengers' irritation would probably have been pretty significant as well....well, except for that whole being dead thing....


Sorry, WTF?


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Oct 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ???
> ...I must have missed the Flight Safety reports on Boeing 777s' tendency to "plow-in" whenever they're below 4000ft....
> ...



[discrete sarcasm]

I think he was referring to the little known, but rather dangerous phenomenon of _stalagmitus aqueous_...you'd sure hate to hit one of those things, especially if it was 4000' tall!   

[/discrete sarcasm]


----------



## Haletown (18 Oct 2012)

It would be interesting to know what MOCA value the put in the Flight Director when they updated their flight plan to go do the search.

Captain's call I guess . . . They get paid the big coin to sit in the left seat and have final say-so.


----------



## Zoomie (19 Oct 2012)

The MOCA over the ocean is pretty low (0-20 feet, depending on sea state). They would have simply just descended to FL040 and looked out the windows.


----------



## Dissident (19 Oct 2012)

Minimum Over C?????? Altitude?


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Oct 2012)

Min Obstacle Clearance Altitude.


----------



## Haletown (20 Oct 2012)

I asked a buddy who right seats a 777 flying long haul out of Europe what would happen on the flight deck in such a situation.  He had heard the story and was thinking about it because the airlines use these types of situations for surprise Line Check scenarios.

Some excellent airmanship had to happen to make this rescue work.  Lots of ATC coordination, fight plan updates, Crew Resource Management etc.  There was no no radar coverage at that altitude and distance offshore so separation coordination with the Airbus would be very high priority.  TCAS  engaged, Air-to-Air Broadcast, Positive VHF localized aircraft, HF and/or CPDLC to Oz ATC.  Depending on the Airspace Category, VFR Might be required but to be avoided.  

Wrt altitude,  his opinion would 1000 feet above the minimum 500 foot "maybe  obstacles" altitude  . . .  Ships, oil rigs, icebergs, what is that doing here .  . .  So 1500 ft. but searching altitudes are best around 4000 feet.  He would use the aircraft automation take care of altitude and devote  much more attention to air to air separation with that Airbus.

The 777 has 3 modes of  flight automation 

1. Autopilot/Auto-throttle linked to/commanded by FMC ( lateral/vertical programmed flightplan )

2. Autopilot/Auto-throttle linked to/commanded by MCP ( speed,heading,altitude as set by pilot on Mode-Control-Panel 

3.  Autopilot off/Auto-throttle off - manual flight


and his choice would be 2 and set a minimum altitude on the MCP

The MCP looks like this.


http://www.meriweather.com/flightdeck/777/glare/mode.html

Also mentioned the 777 radar altimeter is +++ accurate below FL030 so that would be on and monitored - he made a point of Crew Resource Management practices being really, really important and since this flight would have a dual crew, the roles would be discussed, verbally confirmed and if he was the Captain, one pair of Mk 1 eyeballs would be watching the altitude and speed situation as a priority  and one brain would doing non stop Bingo fuel calculations wrt weather, destination, alternates . .. .  He emphasized the search speed at that altitude would be in the 250 knots range and that speed at that altitude "makes 777 pilots nervous"


Just FYI for the curious and makes what that crew did all the more impressive.  Some really impressive airmanship


----------



## dimsum (20 Oct 2012)

Haletown's post makes me wonder; if 777s don't like to be doing that at low altitude, that should make it pretty interesting for the folks in the P-8 (737 airframe) when/if doing low-level sub hunting runs.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Oct 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> but searching altitudes are best around 4000 feet.



 :rofl:


----------



## aesop081 (20 Oct 2012)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> that should make it pretty interesting for the folks in the P-8 (737 airframe) when/if doing low-level sub hunting runs.



The whole point is not to be down low hunting subs, there's no need. theres no need to punch out sonos at 300 to make sure they go where you want them. Life is better for operations above 1000 as it enables better SA.


----------



## Zoomie (20 Oct 2012)

Sounds like a lot of planning for descending to 4,000' AWL.   I won't even bother trying to decipher what Haletown's buddy was attempting to convey in his diatribe.  Planes spend their entire lives flying at 4,000' - going down for a look see wouldn't have really been an issue.  

Glad to see some positive press for Big Red.


----------



## Haletown (25 Oct 2012)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Sounds like a lot of planning for descending to 4,000' AWL.   I won't even bother trying to decipher what Haletown's buddy was attempting to convey in his diatribe.  Planes spend their entire lives flying at 4,000' - going down for a look see wouldn't have really been an issue.



Diatribe?  

I think he was conveying what a seasoned professional pilot & crew would have thinking/doing on the flight deck of 777 under those circumstances.  Somewhat more complex than just "descending to 4,000' AWL".   

He was responding as if he was given that scenario in a regular Pilot Line Check because if he provided the response  "just descend to 4,000ft for a look-see",  I suspect his career/paycheck would be in jeopardy.

Seeing how he is responsible for a $200 million aircraft and the lives of 400 passengers and crew, his employer is much more concerned with his thinking processes, his ability to assess the full situation and  perform the SAR request as safely as professionally possible  than just  fly the plane down to 4,000ft.


Full reveal  . .    I am not a pilot so you could very well be correct.  But given a choice between flying his airline or yours, I know where I would be booking my seat.


----------



## Zoomie (25 Oct 2012)

Please don't take my comments as being insulting. 

Being a pilot of any airplane involves making decisions and following through with a plan.  

A large number of the points that your friend mentioned were superfluous and I would have called him out on them - especially if the question was raised on a line check. 

Pilots are our own worst enemy, we over-glorify our job and make our actions seem hugely complicated.   Most times, the easiest and simplest action is the best - K.I.S.S. is something we adhere to greatly. 

FWIW - I fly a $330MUSD "airliner".


----------



## YZT580 (25 Oct 2012)

Maybe think insurance companies.  Airlines are not supposed to operate VFR outside of controlled airspace.  I suspect that controlled airspace in that area is a long way above 4000 feet so any the crew would have to be very cautious about everything they said and did.  If anything had gone wrong (not that there are a lot of C172s operating in that area) Air Canada would have been liable and that would have cost a bundle.  So a simple descent to 4000 feet on the part of this crew represents a violation of company procedures and a significant risk.  The entire crew deserves a very big congratulations


----------



## Zoomie (25 Oct 2012)

If any mods are watching - a split is needed. We have moved away from FWSAR...


----------

