i am through 25 of 62 pages, but i have to ask this question now in case i forget it. if its been answered you don't need to respond to this, as I will read it soon.

how many feet per second on average are you dropping in altitude during your last second of flight? how many ft/sec do you drop on a hard bad landing in the last second? how many ft/sec do you drop on the softest best landing in the last second?

cool thread. you are a great ambassador of your profession!

On a typical approach, we will usually have a descent rate of around 700 ft/min (which is only a little over 10 ft/second). This figure is, of course, entirely dependent on ground speed. With very strong headwinds, our ground speed will be reduced and therefore we will have a lower decent rate.

If we just flew the plane onto the runway with that 700 ft/min decent rate, it would be bone jarring. So at about 50' agl, we begin the round out where we start to raise the nose and reduce the power. This results in a reduced descent rate as we trade off the energy of the approach speed we've been maintaining. Ideally, we touch down with a decent rate near zero as the energy bleeds off.

In light airplanes, it is customary to land power off at a speed not much above stall speed and, with the light wing loading of the smaller GA planes, you can do this pretty safely. In large transport category planes, we carry some power right down to landing. We don't flirt with stall speed.

Too much emphasis on achieving a 0 ft/min descent rate (which gives that "greaser" landing) can easily result in landing long, as the plane continues flying inches above the runway while the pilot searches for that super smooth landing. If the plane is held off too long, the airspeed bleeds off enough that the plane unceremoniously drops hard onto the runway. I can't tell you exactly what the descent rate would be in feet per second, but I would guess it to be in the 3-5 ft/second region.

The biggest problem with searching for the greaser is the risk of landing outside of the landing zone, which is defined as the first 3000' or first third of the runway, whichever is less. That result is unacceptable. Thus, when landing on a short runway (e.g. DCA or LGA), we really don't put emphasis on a smooth touchdown, even though our egos demand it.

Just had my last ocean crossing today, coming back from London. Tomorrow afternoon I head to Atlanta where I'll begin upgrade trading for Captain of the MD-88. If things go as planned, I'll finish training on November 25.

I'll be posting reports on Air & Space magazine's website, where I've posted several brief blog type articles over the last couple of years (though it's been a while).

The Captain of today's flight from London (Flight 1) insisted on coming out to take my picture when I went to do the walk around.

Congrats on the upgrade!

Just booked a flight with the old lady and put our titles as Reverend and Honourable. Will this get us any benefits?

The Reverend can expect a full cavity search from the choirboy that is now a TSA agent.
Honorable can expect same from the one that went through a bad divorce.

This is why I love this thread. I could spend hours reading about these details (and have).

I saw a Frontline documentary on PBS in regards to the Continental Flight 3407 that crashed (I think in 2009) outside of Buffalo, N.Y.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ingcheap/view/

I believe it was a Continental connection flight that killed 50 people. I also think it said Continental on the plane, on the tickets, & so forth.

But in actuality it was an outsourced flight to a company called Colgan Air that Continental had nothing to do with except having a contract for this company to operate some of their regional flights.

They had nothing to do with pilots, maintenance, training, etc.

And the pilots for Colgan were paid so little it was unbelievable. Co-Pilots I remember got paid less than fast food workers. They had to share apartments in different cities where 10 or more would use them basically to sleep.

I saw the pilot Sully testify before Congress that he would talk his children out of becoming airline pilots these days.

Would be interested in hearing your thoughts about this.

This is the way it's been for at least a few decades now. When I worked for ACA, we operated as United Express. Our planes were painted just like mainline United aircraft and most passengers thought they were boarding a United flight when they got on my plane. (Note: there was some small print on the outside of the aircraft by the boarding door that said "Operated by Atlantic Coast Airlines.")

Yes, they are paid abysmally. I took a large pay cut to leave the world of computer programming and systems engineering in 1993. My starting pay at ACA was less than $17/hour, which doesn't sound bad until you realized that we only get paid block to block, i.e. while the plane is actually moving. You can figure on about 1000 hours of pay per year. In the twenty years since I started there, starting pay at regional airlines has not increased significantly and those pilots qualify for food stamps.

Although the low pay is criminal imo, don't jump to the conclusion that regional airlines have an inferior product. ACA had first rate training and maintenance.

The part about 10 or more pilots sharing an apartment is a bit misleading. I think what you've heard about is a pilot crash pad, which is a house shared by several pilots who commute to their domicile. I had one in Queens, New York when I flew the MD-88 (and I'm going to have get another one now that I'm going back to the 88). I paid $225 a month for a bed in a four-level house that I shared with 18 other pilots. This wasn't our home; it was simply an economical alternative to using a hotel on those trips where we had to come up the day before, or where a trip ended too late to commute home. On any given night, there would be anywhere from one to six pilots there. More than once, I had the place to myself. I might only stay there four nights a month, but that's still preferable to getting hotel rooms.

I agree with Sully. (But I still love my job.)

i have a question about equipment failure mid-air.

i was recently on a commercial flight from phoenix to hawaii. about 45 minutes after crossing from land to flying over the pacific ocean, the captain got on the intercom and said that the aircraft had just experienced a fuel pump failure. as a result, we had to turn around and fly back to phoenix to get on another plane. my questions:

1) on a scale of 1-10 how much danger were we in?
2) if the second fuel pump fails, would the aircraft nose dive or coast back to earth?
3) what causes a fuel pump to malfunction?
4) how would you react to this situation as a pilot?

thanks!

Madeira. This month, I think.

That was fun to watch, thanks for posting Lessu. W0X0F, have you been in a situation where you had to divert because of crosswinds?

1

You didn't say what type of plane you were on, but a second pump failure would only affect that particular fuel tank (each tank has two pumps). If you were on a 757/767, the center tanks are used first, feeding both engines, and then the wing tanks feed their respective engines.

If this was a center pump failure, they might elect not to continue the flight with only one pump (i.e. no redundancy) because they wouldn't be able to use all the fuel in the center tank if the second pump failed. Strictly erring on the side of safety. Chances are good that they could ignore the one failure and continue just fine with the one remaining pump for that tank.

On the MD-88, complete failure of the fuel pumps doesn't mean the engines flame out. The engines will suction feed from the main tanks in that case.

And the airplane will never "nose dive," even if you lose all engines (for whatever reason).

It's a mechanical device and they occasionally break. I can't remember the last time I've had a malfunctioning fuel pump, so they're pretty reliable.

This is a fairly trivial problem. As with any abnormal situation that doesn't require memory items, I would consult the on-board QRH (Quick Reference Handbook). I just happen to have one with me right now for the MD-88, since I'm down here for training in that plane. Let's see what it says...

The book is organized by aircraft systems and fuel system issues are in section 12. The Table of Contents for section 12 lists the following abnormal situations for which the QRH has remedial actions:

• Approach With Less than 1,000 Lb Fuel in Either Main Tank
• CENTER FUEL PRESS LO
• Center Tank Fails to Feed in Flight
• FUEL FIL PRES DROP
• Fuel Flow Indication Inoperative or Reads High
• Fuel Heat Inoperative
• FUEL HEAT ON Light Illuminated
• Fuel Leak
• FUEL LEVEL LOW
• INLET FUEL PRES LO
• Tank Quantity Indicator Erroneous

The ones that are capitalized reflect the system message that would appear on the overheard annunciator panel when this happens. The failure of a fuel pump will result in a low pressure indication. The only one of those we have on the MD-88 is for the center tank (CENTER FUEL PRESS LO) and that's probably because the main tanks will feed just fine if both pumps fail, using suction feed.

If I go to the page for CENTER FUEL PRESS LO, I go through some steps to in an attempt to use the fuel in the center tanks. If these steps fail, there's a note to "Assume center tank fuel is unavailable. Plan remainder of flight using main tank fuel only." Since we don't usually tanker a lot of extra fuel, this is probably going to result in a divert.

i appreciate your answer. since i knew very little about airplanes, i heard "fuel pump failure" in that moment and thought "holy *****; we could die from this."

but from what you're saying, we were not really in any danger.

The original question said they were about 45 minutes over the ocean flying out of Phoenix. If it was serious enough to go back, why not divert to the nearest airport instead of returning to PHX?

PHX is a hub with appropriate maintenance capability for US Airways, which is why they would prefer to return there given the choice. Obviously, if there was a safety issue, they would land at the nearest available airport. Its clearly much safer to fly over land from LA to Phoenix for ~300 miles with lots of other airports than it is to fly ~2500 miles over open ocean to Hawaii.

What he said. (Couldn't have put it better myself.)

Can you describe the last minute of an average flight. What you say, what you think about, what buttons you push, etc.

disregard if already asked and answered. thanks for the answer to my last question, fascinating stuff!

I thought of another few. What is the shortest amount of time that two planes could land in the same direction on the same runway in an emergency? Assume the first plane landing is a normal landing and the second is an emergency landing.

What about 2 critical emergencies happening that require two planes to land at the exact same time? Does this even have a solution that doesn't involve one plane crashing next to the airport? Does the first one to declare emergency get the runway?

One minute prior to landing, we're at about 700' and just over two miles from the runway. At this point all checklists are done and the plane is completely configured for landing and on the approach reference speed. In good weather, there will be nothing said by anyone unless the flying pilot deviates from approach speed by over five knots or has a vertical descent rate greater than 1000'/minute. Usually the plane is being flown without the autopilot at this point but, if not, the pilot will push the disconnect button on the control yoke prior to landing.

In IMC, there will be a little more said as the non-flying pilot makes calls with reference to minimums (e.g. "one thousand","five hundred").

The runway must always be clear before another plane touches down. It's not uncommon for the Tower to tell a landing plane to go around when the preceding plane misses a turnoff and has to taxi farther down the runway to another exit.

Despite this rule, an emergency aircraft can do whatever the Pilot-in-Command deems necessary for the safety of the flight. Of course, that pilot may well have to defend his actions later.

This reminds me of something I heard from a WWII pilot, Albert Esch, who flew the PBM in the Pacific. (He turned 20 the day before D-Day; he's now 90.) He was telling me about his training, flying off the west coast. On one of these flights, they were 500 miles off the coast and one of the engines started acting up. Albert asked the instructor pilot "What will we do if that engine quits way out here?" and the instructor said "We'll just do the best we can."

That's the answer to your scenario too. There's no set response for every imaginable combination of emergencies, so everyone (pilots, ATC) just has to prioritize and deal with the situation the best they can. That's one reason we don't get multiple emergencies thrown at us in the sim. There's no real value in trying to overload the student (which would be easy to do).

On the topic of WWII flying, I came across this story recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie...igler_incident

Was scheduled on a B757 and was delayed to due a "air leak". We ended up switching to another B757, but the pilot came on and said it appeared to be a hole in an air duct due to the APU. Any idea what happened? Obviously, that's a no-go, I assume.

I was talking with the FA later in the flight and she mentioned we could have gotten a B767 and used the same pilots (you stated ITT before that's no issue), but is there any "mental" aspect the pilots would need to consider since they assumed they would be flying a B757?

This past weekend I flew into Charleston, SC and was a little surprised to learn the airport shares runways with the Air Force base next door. Is there anywhere else that does this? How does it work with air traffic control and ground control, are there any differences?

Bleed air is very hot and presents a fire hazard, so it's not taken lightly. There are heat detection loops around the engines, the APU, and the bleed air ducting which will alert the crew to bleed air leaks or fires. A bleed air leak can be easily handled by closing the appropriate bleed air valve and/or shutting down the source of the hot bleed air (e.g. the engine or the APU). A known leak in the bleed air system is definitely a no-go item.

The change from a 757 to a 767 is not a concern to the pilots and, in fact, we often fly both types in the same day, not to mention flying various models of the 757, which can have noticeably different handling characteristics (I'm thinking of the 757-300, which is a stretch version of the 757 and has significantly higher takeoff and landing speeds and requires greater emphasis on tail-strike avoidance due to the increased length of the airframe.)

I can think of two offhand: Hickam AFB/Honolulu International Airport; Pease AFB/Portsmouth NH. Several other civilian airports have a National Guard side of the field (e.g. Richmond, VA; Martinsburg, WV; Charleston, WV).

I used to fly into CHS, or "Charlie South" as we called it (to distinguish it from CRW, or "Charlie West") and I remember the C-17s on the far side of the airport. There was an incident once where a C-17 was doing engine run-ups on their ramp with the jet exhaust aimed directly at the landing zone of the active runway. One of our CRJs encountered this dirty air just as the pilots were entering the flare for landing. The aircraft rolled to the left and struck a wingtip on the runway but luckily the pilots were able to maintain control. It was very nearly a disaster. IIRC, the Air Force admitted fault and paid for the repairs.