Yeah, but the FAA has been talking "next generation" since the 70s and literally billions of dollars have gone down that rathole.

Thanks. Appreciate the insight!

on the MD88 and other jets with the engines in the rear- it looks like the engines are always calibrated a precise angle of higher towards the front of the plane on every plane. is that angle important to be exact for normal flight? engines are removed from planes and cleaned every so often right?

does an aircraft with the engines along the fuselage in the back have a much better aerodynamic profile than say a 767 because of the huge engines on the wing? do you foresee any major redesign of the standard boeing/airbus airframe in the next 50/100 years?

But this time they really mean it!!!1 OMG! They have a webpage and everything!

Excellent point and a compelling argument.

Not to my knowledge. In fact, I've never heard this discussed in any ground school I've attended. If your observation is true (and not an optical illusion of some sort), I can only guess that it is some optimum line of thrust for most efficient flight, but even if it's off it wouldn't be a safety issue. The flight controls have much more authority over flight path than the line of thrust. All we really need is to have thrust more or less aligned along the longitudinal axis of the plane.

It seems intuitive that rear mounted engines are more aerodynamic, but I'm not really qualified to say for sure. There are other obvious trade-offs involved which may be the determining factors (i.e. more important than the gains in aerodynamic efficiency), such as the size of the engine you can mount on the wing vs. the fuselage and the plumbing involved for wing vs. fuselage mounted engines (e.g. fuel lines, pneumatic lines, fire detection and suppression).

I'll check with my dad and see if he has any idea (he has a Master's in Aeronautical Engineering from CalTech...45 years ago, but most of the principles are timeless).

very impressive RC airplane landing after wing snaps off

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOBB_-gZFNo

wow, how is that even possible?

very impressive skill of the pilot. luck that the wing snapping off didn't damage the control surfaces. kind of surprising that he lands the crippled plane going pretty much towards spectators.

Quite an impressive thread, thanks WOXOF for all the info. I found this on flyertalk.com. I live in ATL and fly DAL quite a bit, am a Plat Med. I appreciate all the info! I have a buddy whos dad is a retired Captain with DAL, he loves to tell stories of his flying days over a couple of Scotchs.

Wow did it take me a long time to read all of WOXOF responses, I barely read any of the other post, just glad he quoted the questions so I could fly through them all

Hi 2+2 dudes, me too, I found this site on flyertalk.com and a heck of a read it has been! I'm only on page 38 and am still looking forward to the rest of the thread, but I just thought I would jump to the end and say hello. And, of course, thanks to WOXOF and everyone. I have really enjoyed the questions and answers and links to cool youtube videos.

I'm working on the A350 XWB (extra wide body) in Toulouse, France. The A350, as you probably know, is the Airbus "version" of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. I'm not an engineer or pilot, but I love airplanes so it is a pretty cool place to work, and I see a lot about what is going on throughout the A350 program. I especially love being in Toulouse because of all the testing that goes on...A380's, A330's, with colors, without, touch 'n go's, weird approaches, sharp turns, and then there are the Belugas!, etc. anyway, it is really cool to see a Q+A thread from a pilot, even if he doesn't fly the Bus! Cheers! Powers

Dutch can get pretty sensitive over claims that their cities are German...

In all seriousness, cool pics of Nice. I lived in Monaco for a while, and have flown from this airport many many times. Nice to see Nice...ahum.

Carry on

oops. How embarrassing. I think I just lost all my street cred as a world traveler.

Nice place to live. I went there once on a 48 hour layover in Nice. Took the bus over -- beautiful 40 minute ride along the coast -- and the train back (20 minute ride).

Hmmm, well, let's put it like this: I am glad I don't live there anymore. Personal reasons though, nothing to do with the actual place, if you discount all the snobbery and the fact you pay triple for nearly everything. A can of coke, during any major event: 7 euro?

Have seen the F1 twice and the rally and some concerts and some soccer and ah I guess it IS a nice place. I think the better option is to live in Nice though, or somewhere on that beautiful coast line and pop into Monaco whenever there is something interesting going on.

Every fly on Amsterdam? If so, I would be honoured to invite you for a drink. This has been, is, and will be, an awesome awesome thread

Thank you for the invitation. I've been to Amsterdam several times. We stay in Den Haag right across the street from the World Court, but I've heard a rumor that we may be switching to a hotel in Amsterdam. I went in to Amsterdam once on a 48 hour layover. We went to the Anne Frank house and the Rijksmuseum.

I work very close to Den Haag...seems an odd place for you guys to stay at, right? Amsterdam would be a lot more logical. Any observations, stories or other stuff about Schiphol that you care to share? I guess you heard about the event of Turkish Airlines, that basically stalled on approach to landing, killed 9 I think7? What happened there?

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish...es_Flight_1951

On a sidenote...it seems almost disrespectful to point out all these accidents to you, as if there is not much more to what you do than avoiding accidents. Please don't be taken aback by this, us groundpeople are in total awe of what you do, but the best we (or at least, myself) can come up with is all the things that can go wrong, or went wrong.

One thing I have always wondered about, is it basic part of training/policy to inform the passengers what is going on during the flight? I recall one flight from Cyprus to Amsterdam where we had turbulence for the full 4 hours of flight. Pilot came on the PA to tell the crew to sit down and strap in. Many white noses, let me tell you. But he would have done such a tremendous job (on a moral/human interest level) to tell the passengers it was gonna be a bumpy ride, unpleasant even, however, all was under control.

It seems such a small effort for a thing that can have such a tremendously positive effect?

Hi W0X0F,

Another visitor from Flyertalk stopping by to say thanks for a great read. It's taken a couple of days, but well worth it.

I'm a longtime DL medallion and basically fly what you fly (my primary routes are JFK-NCE, -AMS, -IST, -CDG) and it's been really fascinating to hear your perspectives.

The thing that struck me the most is how serious and conscientious you sound, even while keeping a sense of humor.

Had a few questions while reading that I thought I'd toss out.

1. Seriously - I've pretty likely been on a flight of yours. If I recognize you can I stop up and say Hi? Or would the FAs call the cops if I asked if W0X0F is on the flight deck.

2.Ok, a little more seriously - During the big snowstorm just before Christmas, and in all others I suppose, my general understanding is that most of the irrops were caused more by crew and equipment placement problems than by actual inability to take off and land. Can you shed some light on that side of operations. Also, I notice that INTL flights are much less prone to delays. Does that have to do with the same factors?

3. You (I think) mentioned that the 763s are getting a bit long in the tooth. I can assure you that those of us in the back think so too. Is that your perception as a pilot in actually flying the planes, or more aesthetic?
Do you have any insight into how much longer they will be in service?

Ironically, I've always been loyal to DL because of where they fly nonstop, but in recent months I've been tending to do my best to avoid the 763s, taking connections to avoid 10hrs in the back on DL72/73 for example.

I don't know i you would hear it, but are you aware of any pushback from pax to the company about the state of seat cushions, lack of IFE, etc...

Thanks again for everything.

I have no interesting stories about Schiphol...my flights in there have been uneventful. I hadn't heard about this Turkish Airlines accident. From what I read in the Wikipedia article, it's easy to see what happened. A coupled approach (i.e. on autopilot) will result in an autoland if the autopilot is not disconnected. Part of the autoland is to ****** the throttle to idle and transition to a landing attitude (i.e. nose up).

Of course, it's the altitude which determines when these things happen. So if the Radio Altimeter is malfunctioning (as it was for this flight) you can have these very critical events happening at a bad time. If the crew is monitoring the PFD (Primary Flight Display) and engine instruments, as they should be doing throughout a couple approach, this wouldn't matter as they could take corrective action well before it became critical.

Let's face it, everyone's primary concern when flying is safety, so it's not surprising that accidents are of interest to frequent flyers. We all want to have explanations so that we can feel better about the inherent safety of this mode of transportation.

It's always a little disturbing when it comes down to simple pilot error (whether negligence or lack of ability or knowledge). Usually there's a lengthy "error chain" leading to any accident and we go to great lengths in our training and procedures to minimize the potential for human oversight or mistakes that add to that chain. A big part of that is the crew concept. A saying I heard a long time ago, and one I really like, is that "it's not a mistake unless we both make it."

That's why, for example, we're extremely anal about things like altitude changes. When ATC issues a new altitude, the non-flying pilot reads it back to ATC. The flying pilot sets it on the MCP (Mode Control Panel). And then both pilots physically point at it and announce the new altitude. Then, when we're within 1000' of the new altitude, both pilots say aloud, "Thirteen for fourteen thousand" (for example). Almost sounds silly, but altitude busts are extremely serious.

Though this is included in our training, the level of communication with passengers becomes a very individual thing. The company even goes to the trouble to provide some sample PAs for us to use in certain situations but I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen a pilot use this reference.

In sim training, any time we have an emergency the instructor wants to hear the crew annunciate their intention to notify the FAs, make a PA, call dispatch to inform them of the emergency and, lastly of course, to notify ATC. We simplify this during sim training as "2 in and 2 out" (the 2 in are the FAs and pax; the 2 out are company and ATC). So, what you see in training is: engine failure; fly the plane; secure the engine; run the emergency checklist; "2 in and 2 out"; etc etc. No one wants to waste $1000/hour sim time with a 10 minute PA and FA brief, so we just use the phrase and that lets the instructor/examine know that we're aware of the need for this.

My point is: no one really hones this skill in training. So in the real world, some guys are good about it and some aren't. Even those who have the good intentions may not be very good at extemporaneous speaking and so they tend to avoid the unpleasant task...human nature.

I flew the Delta Shuttle on the MD-88 for a few years and whenever we were delayed I made a point of keeping the passengers up to date. I didn't bs them and I usually told them that we are also frustrated with delays and that I would pass any information I had on to them as it became available. I think that's all anyone really wants.

I was recently commuting on a Comair flight home from JFK and after pushback we just stopped. 10 minutes went by with not a word from up front so I finally called the flight attendant and asked her to suggest to the crew that a PA would be nice. They made a PA within a minute of that and maybe they resented my suggestion...I hope not, but to me it seems such a simple thing to do that can pay such dividends in customer satisfaction.

W0X0F:

from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5748391.shtml:

sudden interwebz rockstar status giving your marraige the same boost?

Hello,

I joined after reading your comment here, which you posted on page 9 of this thread, dated November 9, 2009 so you may or may not have already answered this question, so my apologies if these questions were already asked and answered.

Funny you should mention a 'bra bomber', being that we just had the underwear bomber on a NWA330, what are your feelings on how we can make airport screening and security safer for the flying public, and of course, the flight crew? Is it feasable and possible to place bomb/explosive detectors in airplanes?

Personally, do you have ambitions to one day fly Delta's flagship 777 or NW's 747 planes?

One of my favorite approaches when I fly into LGA is the '31 expressway visual approach'. You make that short left turn onto final over shea stadium, gotta love it! I am sure you must have flown the 31 exp. visual, is that one of your favs?

from flightlevel350, shows a DL 733 making S turns while landing on 31 at lga, and the last clip shows a DL 763 at LGA. great videos!

http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircra...ideo-1851.html

http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircra...ideo-1974.html

Thank you for answering these questions, and great job!

isitEOTyet

Hey, sorry if answered but I couldn't find direct answers to these.

What is the difference b/w a Boeing and Airbus? And what do the #'s mean like 737-200 737-300 or 757-200...etc\

Oh and how fast are you going when landing/taking off like a 737?

You can definitely stop by the cockpit, but the FAs would have no idea who you're talking about, and no idea what W0X0F means. In fact, that term disappeared from day-to-day usage when we went to the ICAO standard for weather reporting (~1995, I think). Any pilot who has been flying longer than that will know the term.

As long as we can get de-iced and they can clear the runway, we can takeoff. If the snow is heavy enough (as it was during that event), it might be impossible to get de-iced and then takeoff within the allowable time (called the holdover time).

De-icing, and the margin of safety when using various types of de-ice fluid, has really come a long way in the last 10-20 years. Because it's not something we do every day, we pull out a special de-ice flowchart from our Operations Manual when confronted with snow or sleet. We have charts which tell us the allowable holdover time depending on the type of de-ice fluid, the concentration of the fluid (50%, 100%), and the intensity of the precipitation.

If we can't get airborne before the holdover time expires, we can do a visual check to confirm that representative surfaces are clear, or we can get a secondary application of de-ice fluid. I recently actually came back into the cabin to visually inspect the wings before taking off because we were outside of the holdover time. I explained to the passengers what I was doing, lest they be concerned about a pilot examining the wing surfaces with a flashlight.

As a pilot, I have the luxury of only being concerned with my particular flight. The guys in the Operations Center for the company really have their hands full because of the ripple effect that delays and cancellations have on the system. Recovery from a major storm can take days because of equipment and crews out of position. Not something I have the mindset to deal with and my hat's off to the guys who do.

No I don't. And while I may have mentioned that they are 1970s era planes, many of them are much younger than that. While today's planes have much more modern cockpits, the 767 is well-engineered and extremely reliable. It's also a pleasure to fly.

I am not in that loop at all. FAs may have some information on that...they seem to know more than most pilots about the stuff back in the cabin.

My wife is not impressed.

I don't have any answers for you where security is concerned. Improvements come at a cost, whether in dollars or in inconvenience to us all (and very often in both). The safest airplane is one that never leaves the gate, but we accept a certain risk to get the plane from A to B. Same for security. The challenge is finding the balance and I'm glad it's not my job to do this.

I'd love to fly either plane, but I'm happy to stay right where I am for now.

When I flew the shuttle (BOS-LGA-DCA) I got to fly this approach a lot, as well as the River Visual approach into DCA. Both are great from the pilot's perspective. Definitely my top two approaches anywhere.

The designator (-200) after the type of aircraft is the model of that type. The first 737 rolled off the assembly line in 1970 and they are still building them. As they modify the design, they just designate a new model number.

The real aficianados (I'm not one of them) can look at a plane and tell you the model number. I'm only good for the type.

As with all planes, the approach speed will increase with weight. I've never flown the 737, but I would guess a typical approach speed to be around 130 kts, more or less. 130 kts = ~149 mph

The same applies to takeoff but there are other considerations besides weight, such as runway length, runway condition, winds, flap setting and takeoff thrust setting. In the 767, our takeoff speed might vary from 140 to 165, depending on these variables. In the 737 it would be somewhat less (being a lighter airplane).