Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Other Other Topics Discussion of arts & entertainment, pop culture, food & drink, health and exercise, fashion, relationships, work, and just about anything else in life except poker, sports, religion and politics.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-20-2016, 07:14 AM   #7451
KennyJPowers
adept
 
KennyJPowers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,140
Re: Ask me about being an airline pilot or flying in general

I heard somewhere Captain Sully and his F/O didn't switch a button on for ditching in water? Probably because of time, trying to restart the engine among 1000 other thing going through their heads in such a high pressure situation

It is one of the most amazing things I have ever seen with the perfect landing, just wondered if the plane would have stayed afloat if the ditch button had been pressed?
KennyJPowers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2016, 10:03 AM   #7452
fromFT
newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 27
Re: Ask me about being an airline pilot or flying in general

Quote:
Originally Posted by W0X0F View Post
*On this subject: I had a clean CT scan two weeks ago and I'm waiting to hear about getting back to work.
To your good health! I heard the Charles Lindbergh's Trimotor got air worthiness again. Once you are 'clear' I'd call them and 'beg for a ride...

Quote:
Originally Posted by W0X0F View Post
I may not the best guy to ask, since I haven't flown since this past January*, but there was a renewed emphasis on the topic of reverse thrust....
While you are temporary on leave, do you still maintain recurrent training? (or does the company waits until you complete the leave to get you back to 'current' status?) for example-- are you still getting the recurrent sim training?
fromFT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2016, 08:53 PM   #7453
W0X0F
sit back, relax, and enjoy the flight
 
W0X0F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,347
Re: Ask me about being an airline pilot or flying in general

Quote:
Originally Posted by W0X0F View Post
Just went to see Sully two days ago. My report will follow shortly...
Well, here are my thoughts on Sully. When I said "shortly" (above), I was thinking in terms of geological timeframes.

As I said, this movie got so much right. I like the fact that they used the terms QRH and APU without feeling like they had to have the characters explain it:
"Grab the QRH! You know, the Quick Reference Handbook, the thing that provides guidance for emergency and abnormal situations."
They just presented the exchanges between the pilots the way pilots would talk.

OK, here are the nits that I can remember now, over a week after seeing the movie.

(1) The visuals showing the flight path of the emergency aircraft, both the F4 flashback and the Airbus descent to the Hudson, showed the airplanes kind of bobbing and weaving when the actual flight paths were almost certainly the much less entertaining rock steady descents. In the case of the F4, if it was a flight control issue (e.g. losing hydraulic assist to the controls) then, sure, it's possible he had to wrestle it a little more and so maybe the flight path would be more erratic. But for the Airbus, the plane was flying just fine and Sully would not be jinking around the sky.

(2) The scenes in the back, immediately following the bird strike but before the FAs knew what was happening, showed the FAs already up in the cabin. They went around reiterating the need to check seat belts for security. In normal ops, they would have been in their seats below 10000'. Like I said, this is a real nit.

(3) During the simulator re-creations of the event, I noticed that the Captain in the second one (the one that diverted to Teterboro) kept her hands on the throttles throughout the scenario and even retarded the throttles at touchdown as one would normally do. These throttles are merely ornamental after both engines have been lost and the QRH would probably leave them in the flight idle position. It may just be "muscle memory" at work here, and it certainly didn't do any harm. I just happened to notice it. Nit.

When they did the simulations, and the first one ended with a successful return to LGA, I immediately thought what BS it was that the pilots reacted instantly and began the turn back within a couple of seconds of the engines rolling back. I can't imagine that ever being the case and I loved it when this was addressed (Sully spoke up and mentioned this exact thing).

I said it before itt: if you have to ditch a plane this is almost best case scenario, except for the lack of any power. Long, wide, protected waterway with rescue boats only minutes away. The other big negative was the frigid water and I wonder if Skyles' line in the movie was added or if he really said it. I loved that line. (When asked by the NTSB if he would do anything differently, he said "Yeah. I'd do it in July.")

Now, although I did say it was best case scenario, I'm not saying it was no big thang. If I was faced with this situation, my sphincter would definitely pucker. This incident goes down in aviation history: A forced water landing in a jet weighing over 100,000 lbs with 155 souls on board and not one life was lost! It could have been so much worse and full credit to Sully and Skyles and the cabin crew.



So bottom line: good movie, more accurate than any other aviation movie I've seen.
W0X0F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2016, 08:59 PM   #7454
W0X0F
sit back, relax, and enjoy the flight
 
W0X0F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,347
Re: Ask me about being an airline pilot or flying in general

Quote:
Originally Posted by KennyJPowers View Post
I heard somewhere Captain Sully and his F/O didn't switch a button on for ditching in water? Probably because of time, trying to restart the engine among 1000 other thing going through their heads in such a high pressure situation

It is one of the most amazing things I have ever seen with the perfect landing, just wondered if the plane would have stayed afloat if the ditch button had been pressed?
I remember hearing this too. I think the Airbus has a "Ditching" switch will close all external doors (e.g. the outflow valve which, on my plane, is a circular port about a foot in diameter on the side of the rear fuselage). This wouldn't make the plane airtight, but it would probably increase the float time.

Pushing that switch was probably an item in the Ditching checklist in the QRH, but they never got to that checklist. Maybe someone here read that entire transcript (I didn't read it all yet) and can comment on whether this came up at all with the NTSB.

The plane actually did stay afloat so I guess it wasn't that crucial.
W0X0F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2016, 09:11 PM   #7455
W0X0F
sit back, relax, and enjoy the flight
 
W0X0F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,347
Re: Ask me about being an airline pilot or flying in general

Quote:
Originally Posted by fromFT View Post
To your good health! I heard the Charles Lindbergh's Trimotor got air worthiness again. Once you are 'clear' I'd call them and 'beg for a ride...
I'd take you up on that offer! Somewhere, I have a picture of me leaning out of the cockpit window of that plane (Serial #10, iirc).

Quote:
While you are temporary on leave, do you still maintain recurrent training? (or does the company waits until you complete the leave to get you back to 'current' status?) for example-- are you still getting the recurrent sim training?
While I'm out on disability, I'm essentially dead to Flight Ops. I went non-current on landings after 90 days and at this point it's been about eight months since I flew. Our recurrent training cycle is nine months for my fleet (in the 757/767, it was six months because of the World Wide Ops training that was included). If they called me back tomorrow, they might try to just put me through the standard 9-month recurrent training, which consists of two 4-hour sim sessions. At this point, I'd like a little more than that.
W0X0F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2016, 07:39 AM   #7456
jjshabado
Carpal Tunnel
 
jjshabado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,612
Re: Ask me about being an airline pilot or flying in general

Quote:
Originally Posted by W0X0F View Post
I remember hearing this too. I think the Airbus has a "Ditching" switch will close all external doors (e.g. the outflow valve which, on my plane, is a circular port about a foot in diameter on the side of the rear fuselage). This wouldn't make the plane airtight, but it would probably increase the float time.

Pushing that switch was probably an item in the Ditching checklist in the QRH, but they never got to that checklist. Maybe someone here read that entire transcript (I didn't read it all yet) and can comment on whether this came up at all with the NTSB.

The plane actually did stay afloat so I guess it wasn't that crucial.
I seem to remember reading something that said there was damage to the rear portion of the plane from the force of the landing. Wikipedia (yeah, yeah) seems to confirm: "The impact with the water had ripped open a hole in the underside of the airplane and twisted the fuselage, causing cargo doors to pop open and fill the plane with water from the rear." So in this case I assume the 'ditching' switch wouldn't have made much differences.
jjshabado is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2016, 07:42 PM   #7457
fromFT
newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 27
Re: Ask me about being an airline pilot or flying in general

Since you have flown the Jetstream 41 before, I thought of getting your input on this incident. See here:

https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20160924-0

And here for photos, runway drawing, and videos of the (ex?) jetstream 41...

http://www.jacdec.de/2016/09/24/2016...t-at-bhairawa/

The plane had a runway of 4,921 feet, touch the runway pretty early, and still somehow managed to need more than 350 feet post the runway to stop. My basic understanding is that with this length of runway the J41 can basically stopped even with partial break and lowering the engine power. Any take on this incident from the initial data?

PS- you may have actually flown this plane in the past. It used to be listed as N304UE Atlantic Coast Airlines

(https://www.planelogger.com/Aircraft.../9N-AIB/679004)
fromFT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2016, 08:06 PM   #7458
pig4bill
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 23,480
Re: Ask me about being an airline pilot or flying in general

Quote:
Originally Posted by W0X0F View Post
To my knowledge, there has been no automation retrofitted on the planes to aid in avoiding an overboost during thrust reverser deployment. I doubt there ever will be any such modification made to the plane. Like it or not, proper use of reversers in the MD-80 series of planes is going to depend on capable pilots.
Automation might be hard but it seems like it wouldn't be very hard or expensive to add an alarm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by W0X0F View Post
So bottom line: good movie, more accurate than any other aviation movie I've seen.
Didn't they make a movie about the farm field landing/crash where the plane lost hydraulics and the pilot steered with the throttles? That seemed more counterintuitive than landing on a river and took some quick thinking.

Speaking of starting the APU, did they do that because the batteries didn't have enough power to run everything, or where they trying to get the teeny bit of thrust from it?
pig4bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2016, 09:18 PM   #7459
W0X0F
sit back, relax, and enjoy the flight
 
W0X0F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,347
Re: Ask me about being an airline pilot or flying in general

Quote:
Originally Posted by fromFT View Post
Since you have flown the Jetstream 41 before, I thought of getting your input on this incident. See here:

https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20160924-0

The plane had a runway of 4,921 feet, touch the runway pretty early, and still somehow managed to need more than 350 feet post the runway to stop. My basic understanding is that with this length of runway the J41 can basically stopped even with partial break and lowering the engine power. Any take on this incident from the initial data?
Hard to comment on this because I really only have the result to go on. There is no mention of the weather conditions or the experience level of the pilots. That runway length is certainly sufficient for the J41. The shortest runway we flew into when I flew that plane with Atlantic Coast was about the same length (State College PA, 5000' iirc). I never had a concern about the length.

On a 4900' runway, if you land a little long and little hot (by hot, I mean carrying extra speed) you could find it sporting to get stopped. Throw in a light tailwind and it gets worse. But that's why you pay more attention to having a stabilized approach on the proper glidepath when landing on a shorter runway. If it looks like you're not going to get it on the ground at the point you planned on, go around and try again.

Quote:
PS- you may have actually flown this plane in the past. It used to be listed as N304UE Atlantic Coast Airlines
Yes, I've flown as a Captain on this specific airframe so it kind of breaks my heart to see it lying broken off the end of the runway in Nepal. I was still at Atlantic Coast when we started retiring these planes (after Atlantic Coast became Independence Air), taking them up to Presque Isle, Maine.
W0X0F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2016, 09:34 PM   #7460
W0X0F
sit back, relax, and enjoy the flight
 
W0X0F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,347
Re: Ask me about being an airline pilot or flying in general

Quote:
Originally Posted by pig4bill View Post
Didn't they make a movie about the farm field landing/crash where the plane lost hydraulics and the pilot steered with the throttles? That seemed more counterintuitive than landing on a river and took some quick thinking.
You're probably talking about United Flight 232, a DC-10 that crashed in Sioux City, Iowa in 1989. I don't think I've seen that movie. Do you know the name of it?

Quote:
Speaking of starting the APU, did they do that because the batteries didn't have enough power to run everything, or where they trying to get the teeny bit of thrust from it?
In normal flight, electrical power is provided by two engine-driven generators. Either generator is capable, by itself, of providing all electric power. We like to have redundancy with something so important as electrical power, so if one engine fails the QRH will direct us to start the APU, giving us another generator.

In situation like Sully's, with both engines inoperative, we would only have emergency power provided by the ship's batteries. This would give us minimal emergency power (including communications on radio #1) for at least 30 minutes. Starting the APU would power everything.

There is no thrust provided by the APU. Even though it's a turbine engine in its own right, the exhaust is usually not ejected along the longitudinal axis of the plane. But even on planes where it is ejected straight out the tail, it's insignificant.
W0X0F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2016, 11:09 PM   #7461
pig4bill
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 23,480
Re: Ask me about being an airline pilot or flying in general

I figured so. I just remembered seeing one where it was super obvious, maybe on a 747, and the exhaust was straight out the tail.

RE: United 232, maybe it was a made-for-tv movie I was thinking of?

WRT to the FAA "trial" I think I would have demanded to see the 11 failed simulations those guys flew before they got the good one. And maybe it was for the movie, but the sim looked more like Microsoft Flight Simulator than a real airline sim.
pig4bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2016, 11:34 AM   #7462
Wondercall
veteran
 
Wondercall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,187
Re: Ask me about being an airline pilot or flying in general

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdo3XEYvfRM

I recommend this Air Crash Investigation about United 232.
Wondercall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2016, 12:02 AM   #7463
Professionalpoker
 
Professionalpoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: @propoker
Posts: 15,284
Re: Ask me about being an airline pilot or flying in general

Hope a prop falling apart doesn't happen too often. This guy handles it well.

Professionalpoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2016, 12:49 AM   #7464
All-inMcLovin
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
All-inMcLovin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: FLOP SO HARD POPOVICH WANNA SIGN ME
Posts: 18,898
Re: Ask me about being an airline pilot or flying in general

I once flew home sitting next to a pilot. He said that more/less the plane basically flies itself en route while landings and take-offs are the hard part.

With landings being the more difficult part.

Is this true?

Can you expound on any of this? Like what is a situation where flying en route can be tricky?
All-inMcLovin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2016, 11:13 AM   #7465
HouseRulz
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 74
Re: Ask me about being an airline pilot or flying in general

Quote:
Originally Posted by W0X0F View Post
Here's an interesting read for anyone who has the inclination to check out a 220+ page transcript. Everything you wanted to know about Sully's emergency landing in the Hudson River. Quite a bit different from what's in the movie, according to a good friend of mine (I haven't seen the movie).

US Airways Flight 1549 NTSB Transcript
This is significantly different than the way the hearing is depicted in the film. Obviously, a lot of the changes are done for dramatic effect, but essentially the NTSB is the antagonist of the film, despite the fact that the actual transcript suggests the NTSB wasn't critical of the decision-making.

So I was wondering, does this reflect some general negative feelings of commercial pilots towards the NTSB?
HouseRulz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2016, 04:34 PM   #7466
W0X0F
sit back, relax, and enjoy the flight
 
W0X0F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,347
Re: Ask me about being an airline pilot or flying in general

Quote:
Originally Posted by HouseRulz View Post
This is significantly different than the way the hearing is depicted in the film. Obviously, a lot of the changes are done for dramatic effect, but essentially the NTSB is the antagonist of the film, despite the fact that the actual transcript suggests the NTSB wasn't critical of the decision-making.

So I was wondering, does this reflect some general negative feelings of commercial pilots towards the NTSB?
I don't think so. I've never heard a disparaging remark about the NTSB. What I think is going on here is that they realized that the movie would be boring if it's just a 90 minute love letter to Sully, so they needed an antagonist. And you can never do much better than a government agency when you need a bad guy.
W0X0F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2016, 09:09 PM   #7467
Didace
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Didace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9,143
Re: Ask me about being an airline pilot or flying in general

Quote:
Originally Posted by HouseRulz View Post
This is significantly different than the way the hearing is depicted in the film. Obviously, a lot of the changes are done for dramatic effect, but essentially the NTSB is the antagonist of the film, despite the fact that the actual transcript suggests the NTSB wasn't critical of the decision-making.

So I was wondering, does this reflect some general negative feelings of commercial pilots towards the NTSB?
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didace View Post
I have read (haven't seen the movie either) that for dramatic purposes the movie showed the investigation as a much more confrontational process than it really was. The were going to use the investigators real names but Sully, as a consultant for the movie, insisted that if they were going to portray it that way real names should not be used as the investigation was cordial and professional, tough but fair.
Didace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:05 AM   #7468
OutOfCrown
enthusiast
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 88
Re: Ask me about being an airline pilot or flying in general

Was listening to the ATC at a busy airport and pilots were having trouble understanding this particular controller. Many readbacks were "say again" or were in fact wrong and required correction. I'm used to hearing that "almost never".

The controller was not enunciating clearly - basically mumbling. Is there a review mechanism addressing radio intelligibility?
OutOfCrown is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.33 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ę 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online