This post contains some common misconceptions of the public with regard to this industry. I'll briefly address each of them.

First of all, the one absolutely correct thing you've stated is your assessment of Captain Sullenberger. His really is an accomplished aviator and an incredible representative for airline pilots. I am an unabashed fan of his.

So how does he end up being "merely" an Airbus 320 Captain? Well, it's all about seniority in this industry. Merit plays absolutely no role in determining what aircraft a pilot flies or what seat he sits in (Captain or First Officer..."co-pilot" to the public). When Sully hit the airline market looking for a job, USAir was one of the "bigs" and he undoubtedly had applications out with several airlines. It may be that USAir was the first to offer him a job, or that he had several offers and picked the one with domiciles he preferred. Who knows?

US Airways (formerly USAir) is a collection of several older airlines that were consolidated over the years (Piedmont and Allegheny among them). It has had some troubles over the years, but to say it isn't a "good airline" is an unfair slur. Progression there has been ridiculous over the last two decades and there are many First Officers there with 20+ years of time at the company. That same seniority would make them 767 Captains where I work.

You may consider them elite, but a lot of U.S. pilots have no desire to work for any of these airlines. Many of the middle east airlines enjoy a competitive advantage because they are subsidized by their country. I have a friend who is a Captain at Emirates (we flew together at ACA). After living for years in Dubai, he bought a home in Austria and now commutes to work.

You'll need a connection in the training department to pull this off. For a regular line pilot (like me) to be able to get a friend in the simulator is probably impossible. When I was an instructor at ACA, I got family and friends in the sim quite often. And, yes, most sims have two jumpseats in them for observers. When the jumpseat is used, it's usually occupied by a Fed or a company training supervisor or other instructor getting OJT.

I love Toronto; it's been at least 10 years since I've been there. But a free dinner? I may have to adjust my bid for May!

Thanks for the quick reply. Thanks for clearing up some of the misconceptions. Now knowing this, if someone is coming from the military from with a wealth of experience (but I'm assuming in totally different aircraft than in the commercial sector) do they just start off flying a turboprop or RJ? Or is there a chance they could land a job in a 737/A320 depending on the airline?

The plane you start in depends on the airline that hires you and their need at the time you start. In my starting class of 30 pilots, 27 of us were assigned to be 727 Flight Engineers and three got 737 First Officer spots. A lot of pilots hired in 2006 went straight into the 767 and found themselves flying international flights. They didn't get the 767 because of merit; it was just that the company had a need at that moment to fill some seats in that fleet.

The plane and domicile a pilot gets can be very arbitrary and directly affect his quality of life. When I got hired at ACA, I started in the Jetstream 32, a 19 seat turboprop with no autopilot, no lav and no flight attendant. Two weeks later, the company hired another 30 guys for the Jetstream 41, a 29 seat turboprop with glass cockpit, autopilot, lav and flight attendant. They were junior to me, but for the next few years they definitely had a more enjoyable work experience than I had.

BTW, in answer to your previous post about Sullenberger, I meant to mention that a former Shuttle astronaut, Robert "Hoot" Gibson, also started at the bottom of the seniority list. After leaving NASA with five shuttle missions under his belt, he still wanted to fly and he got hired by Southwest airlines. He started as the most junior pilot despite his impressive flying experience.

This reminded me of a random question that came up at work a while back. Nobody knew the answer. If you're a space shuttle pilot and you launch for a one week mission, how much flight time are you putting in your logbook?

That's an interesting point to consider. The question itself is kind of humorous, but if I treat it seriously I guess I'd have to log the entire time (168 hours for a week). But another question is: under what category would it be logged? I think it would have to be Glider.

This made me wonder how guys who fly powered gliders log their time. These are gliders which have a small, sometimes stowable engine that allows them to launch without a tow plane and then, once aloft, to shut down (and sometimes stow) the engine and continue flying in the pure glider mode. Do they log the entire flight as Glider or do they divide it between Airplane (when the engine is running) and Glider?

This is somewhat analogous to the space shuttle, which is powered for the launch and then continues flight as a glider. A major difference is that the shuttle's "launch engine" is neither stowable nor reusable and is not actually part of the craft itself.

ASH 26 E self-launching sailplane with propeller extended

Amongst your other multiple offers, if you decide to hit Vegas late June/early July drinks/dinner are on me.

If you’re a senior pilot and you’re only qualified on a certain aircraft, i.e. B757/767 and you bid on the same route every month, i.e. JFK-LAS and always get it, what happens if the company decides they are no longer going to fly the B757/767 on the JFK-LAS route? I assume you have to bid on another route unless you want to be trained on a new aircraft type?

I have flown into LAS from west on several occasions. I always found it odd that you fly just south of the airport going east, then make a south-west-north turn to land on either 1L or 1R. I assume this is a terrain issue or is it just the landing pattern for aircraft coming from the west?

Things change all the time. For the first half of 2012, I flew trips that consisted of one flight to LAS, 25 hour layover, and then red-eye back to New York. I probably did that trip two dozen times. Then the company took the long LAS layover and embedded it in a four day trip that was non-commutable on one one end or the other, so I started looking for other commutable trips. Also, a lot of LAS trips are now flown on the 737 instead of the 757.

For next month, there are a couple of commutable trips containing long LAS layovers, so I'm going to try to get a few. I would love to get back there.

This sounds like a pretty standard pattern for landing to the north and it may well be a terrain consideration. If the plane few from the west on a course that brought them farther to the south of the airport, they could make a simple turn north to land. But they might bring it in closer to the airport to make sure it's in protected airspace. This would make it necessary to turn it south first so that it has a long enough final approach

But using 1R/1L for landing at LAS is pretty rare. In all my flights to LAS (probably numbering 40-50 trips), I've landed on 1L or R only twice, 7R once, and 19L or R maybe four or five times. 25L is the most common landing runway.

It's questions (and more importantly, responses) like this that exemplify how this thread has managed to be continuously interesting for over 2 years now!


And in the past 2 years, have you ever actually taken anyone up on their offer of drinks and/or dinner?

Well thanks. This thread has been a lot of fun for me. The diversity and quality of questions has exceeded my expectations over the last three and a half years. (I started this thread on Nov 8, 2009.)

I've actually gotten together with three people from the FlyerTalk forum, where I have a spinoff thread. That thread was started by a twoplustwo guy who frequents both forums and I've developed a friendship with him. We've played poker together several times.

I had lunch in Vegas, breakfast in Boston and a meeting in the frequent flyer lounge at JFK. One of the FlyerTalk people also invited me to fly an antique Stinson at an airshow in Minnesota. I posted about that experience in the FlyerTalk thread (here).

I've met some twoplustwo people at my local poker room (Charles Town, WV) but I really need to attend the annual twoplustwo meeting in Las Vegas and I think I'll make an effort to finally do that this year.

Hypothetically speaking, a VFR a/c can take whatever measures they need to avoid wake turbulence - while an IFR a/c on the ILS can't deviate from their flight path. As well, since IFR uses radar they generally use number of miles instead of time to separate a/c. Since radar isn't 100% perfect, a 'fudge factor' is built in to increase the wake turbulence separation to more than it would be for VFR a/c. There is obviously a radar separation minimum (generally 3 or 5 miles), but also an additional wake turbulence minimum added depending on relative weights.

For example, (in Canadian ATC anyways) a VFR light category a/c can take off directly behind another medium category a/c (IFR or VFR) with only a wake turbulence cautionary. However, if both a/c are IFR, both a radar separation minimum (3 miles) and a wake turbulence minimum (an additional 1 mile) are given between the a/c.

But obviously having wake turbulence differences between VFR and IFR a/c doesn't really make much sense...

Only on page 4 so sorry if this was asked already, but i have a pretty bad fear of flying and the main thing that always freaks me out is when shortly after taking off the sound of the engine just somewhat disappears.

I know its normal as it happens everytime, just wondering what causes it so I dont always imagine it was the engines cutting out.

I still miss Piedmont so much. To this day, I think you can tell the difference between ex-PI folks and the rest of US. Of course, this could be my southern bias...

I used to work with folks at Oceana who ran the fighter sims and got some truly OMG I'm going to die experiences on the F-14 and FA-18 sims. Good times.

Hey! I actually started that thread on flyertalk. The other guy is totally an imposter.

FWIW, in the US, an aircraft departing from an intersection needs a 3 minute delay behind a larger type aircraft departing full length (a Cessna 172 behind a 737, for instance).

Jet engines cost several million dollars each and one of the best ways to prolong the life of these engines is to minimize the operating temperature. So once we reach 1000' agl, we reduce the power from the takeoff setting to a climb setting. On some engine types this reduction in power sounds pretty dramatic and it will be even more noticeable if we make a full power takeoff, which is the exception.

Normally, we used a reduced takeoff power setting which gives us all the performance we need for the conditions but at a lower engine temperature. One typical scenario where we would use full power on takeoff is if there is a possibility of windshear on takeoff. So, if you takeoff in gusty winds there's a good chance it will be a full power takeoff and the power reduction at 1000' will be more noticeable.

Aren't some reductions due to noise abatement?

Reducing power for noise abatement seems intuitive, but it's wrong. We never reduce power on climbout for the purpose of reducing noise. In fact, the noise abatement takeoff profile actually has us delay the power reduction until 1500' agl and we delay the flap retraction until 3000' agl (we usually clean up after the initial power reduction at 1000'). Both of these actions serve to get the airplane higher faster and that's the biggest factor in reducing the noise footprint for those on the ground.

Another major component of a noise abatement takeoff is the ground track to be followed and this is obviously designed to avoid more noise sensitive areas on the ground. There are several places in Europe (and some in the U.S.) where even a slight deviation from the established noise abatement path will incur steep fines for the airline.

There is one case I can think of where we attempt to minimize noise by keeping power at a minimum and that's on arrival to London Heathrow. They often clear us for the approach 20 miles out at and we are supposed to make one continuous descent to landing, i.e. no level offs. The reason for this is that stopping the descent requires an increase in power and this means more noise. So it's up to us to monitor our descent path, continuously cross checking it with the standard 3-to-1 mental math (about 300' up for every mile out from the runway) and adjust our descent rate accordingly. It's been a while since I've flown this arrival and I can't remember if there are fines for non-compliance.

Sadly, several mods have told me that the event isn't likely to happen this year. Rumor is that 2p2 has not been able to secure a venue.

In the United States version of 'extreme takeoff', noise abatement is achieved not by reduction of power but by almost 'full power' (90-95%) used at takeoff. I think Prawney may get some good therapy for his fears of flying (at least for the takeoff part) by trying to get on several flights coming out of Runway 19R at John Wayne Airport (next to Newport Beach/Costa Mesa, Southern California). Once he gets used to these takeoffs, he should feel the normal takeoff and climb out are much more comforting.

The typical takeoff generally begins with the pilot coming on to caution the passengers on the coming procedure (but not always), but even that warning can scare many who have not experienced it previously. The 'experience' itself starts at the 5,701 foot runway (compare to LAX Runways 9-12,000 feet) with the pilot cycling to full power while engaging the brakes, then releases the brakes once the engines are fully spooled up. The steep takeoff angle makes you feel as though you are shooting straight up like a rocket launch which captures your attention fast (actually 21 to 25 degrees v normal takeoff 10-15 degrees). Then, suddenly (at 800 agl) the loud rumbling noise of the engine unnervingly seems to actually go completely silent, and the nose feels as though it is dropping rapidly as it goes to what seems like level flight with no engines, almost as though you were gliding (apparently the angle of ascent at that point is actually 15 degrees and the engines have only had thrust reduced 10-15%). It is one of the most unusual feelings even an experienced flyer can get on an aircraft. Only a short time later, once the aircraft gets out over the Newport Beach coastline, the engines appear to 'come back on' and it feels as though a normal assent and regular climb out is taking place.

I will never forget my first experience out of John Wayne on a business trip with a 'very fearful' flyer. Not sure if it would have made it worse if the announcement was made for my scared business companion, but the pilot said nothing about the upcoming thrill ride. At takeoff I was even like wtf when we shot straight up with the engines rumbling like thunder while my seatmate was holding onto my arm tightly -- but when the engines cut-off I could hear an audible shriekish sound and I was asked, "Are We OK?" Then someone behind us who must have sensed the panic in my neighbor, told us this was the normal takeoff from John Wayne.

In a corollary to W0X0F's thread:

• In the Detroit 1987 Northwest Crash one of the contributing factors in the crash was the crew's concern about arriving at John Wayne Airport before the 11:00 p.m. commercial airline arrival curfew.
  
• The 1993 Business Jet crash on approach to John Wayne Airport (killed three executives from In-N-Out Burger including the President) was caused by the wake turbulence from a 757 which it was following. It directly led to the 757 being declared a 'heavy' aircraft and other airplanes warned about flying behind it. The crash investigation led to the FAA requirement for an adequate period between heavy aircraft and following light aircraft to allow wake turbulence to diminish. The sad thing about this crash is that as in many, it was preventable in that there had been previous warnings of severe wake turbulence caused by 757s with zero action taken by aviation regulators. Officials Warned Years Ago of 757 Turbulence Danger

A little nitpicking here, but the 757 is not considered a "heavy" aircraft, which is defined as an aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight greater than 255,000 lbs, but it is known to generate dangerous wake turbulence and is treated like a "heavy" in this regard (i.e. other aircraft are warned when following it).

I was wondering about airport firefighter / rescue personnel. Given that they could go months or years between actual emergencies, do these guys have more downtime that almost any other profession? I would think that, given the critical importance of their response time when needed (usually with little to no warning,) they couldn't really be utilized for other tasks while on duty. Maybe they run drills every day?

Ha, just to be funny and waste posting space, I will retort/nit back that some 757 aircraft have had a heavy ATC designation including ones flown by ATA (supposedly had high gross mods for their B752s) and that all 753s had a heavy designation because they exceeded the MTW Threashold you quoted up until 2010

In 2009 a 752 could be designated either heavy or large based on weight but...
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m.../N7110.504.pdf
If the actual weight class of a B757-200 (B752) aircraft is unknown, for the purposes of applying wake turbulence separation criteria stated in this paragraph, consider the B752 aircraft as a heavy when it is the lead aircraft and as a large when it is the trailing aircraft.

6. Background. Several operators have been refitting some of their B752 aircraft to increase their operating range. These modifications increase the maximum gross takeoff weight to approximately 255,500 pounds making these aircraft “heavy” as defined by the FAA’s weight classification system.

It appears the FAA changed the designation of all 757s not to be 'heavy' in April 2010

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...ger-heavy.html

The Federal Aviation Administration has issued a Notice to Airman re-classifying all versions of 757 aircraft as “large,” effective April 8, 2010. All requirements and procedures that were based on certain airframes being classified “heavy” are rescinded and eliminated. This covers the 757-300 versions as well as all of the weight variants of the 757-200.

All 757s were previously provided the special wake turbulence separation standards that have been in effect for years. Beginning April 8, aircraft following any version of 757 will no longer be provided “heavy” separation. This will reduce ATC separation requirements by one mile behind the 757-300 and the “heavy” variants of 757-200.

The elimination of the “heavy” call will end any confusion regarding what kind of 757 you are flying. Be conscious of the new reduced separation ATC requirements, because the 757 produces significant wake turbulence. If you have any questions, please contact a member of the APA Safety Committee.

Your APA Safety Committee...Looking out for you

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So in the end you were of course absolutely correct as usual, the 757 is not considered a "heavy" aircraft, but only because the FAA says so since 2010...

Thanks WEC! That information is going to come in handy for a bar bet at some point.

I always love listening to the JFK Tower during bad weather, espeically spring time thunderstorms. They had storms yesterday evening and it caused all kinds of problems as you might expect. There were several pilots suggesting taxi routes. One of the controllers responded back "thanks everyone, but we got it over here." How often do you hear pilots making suggestions to ATC?

During those same storms a 777 broke off approach twice, first on 22L, then 31R and had to divert to PHL. I couldn't tell for sure, but I assume it was a wind shear problem. How often have you gone around twice and had to divert?

I flew out of Vegas early yesterday morning and we used 7L. That was a first for me.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/cyber...ijack-airplane

So a wiseguy at a hackers convention in Amsterdam demonstrated the ability to use ACARS to break into an aircraft's flight management system and cause some havoc. Seems to me that with various warnings to alert to unusual conditions and a couple of professionals such as yourself up there, somebody would stand little chance of autopiloting a plane into the ground. Could you envision a scenario where some ass-hat could cause something disastrous, or would the worst he could do be to terrorize some PAX and make your job a PITA?