13+18=31

True, I was commenting on the length of the thread.

It looks like most of what I wanted to get to is comments, but I will try to put them in the form of a question.

It's really too bad that you can't see that Mayday show, W0X0F. Most of the accidents noted in this thread have full episodes. It may be worth having someone teach you how to bounce your IP out of Canada. Anyone who can get to the Discoverychannel.ca site, do try. There's a great image in the Gimli Glider episode where two kids are on their bikes and plane is looming, crabbing a few hundred feet from the runway.

I remember the plane being called the Gimli Goose [it may have been the headline in the local paper] which was a really cheap wine. One of those kids recently had to dodge an airplane for the second time in his life.
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/475151

I think they mention on that or other episodes about a little propeller that pops out with both engines dead or no gas to provide emergency power for primary controls.

On another episode about an AT-76 that crashed due to icing in Indiana, the accident that caused most of these planes to be shipped to the South, they say that the commuters are/were non-priority at O'Hare behind the internationals. Is that true? Is that due to scheduled landings, schedules, politics, fuel consumption rates?

Isn’t that little float-plane in the first few pages a little RC float-plane?

Do you get to the casino in Monaco? Have you been one bay over from Nice to Ville-Franche or Beulieu-sur-Mer?

On a little plane you increase the thrust to climb and then adjust the nose. There is an increase in lift due to the angle of attack, but very little of that is due to deflection. Is it the thrust/weight ratio or a change in the magnitude of momentum that makes you think in terms of pulling the stick back to climb? You still drop the nose to gain immediate speed!


[No I'm not done.]

Ooops!

Awesome thread, I've spent about a week reading it on and off after discovering it. I am a very frequent flier so I have a bunch of questions that, I think, have not been asked yet.

1) Are they any handling differences with rear fuselage mounted engines like the DC-9 or any stretch 9 like the MD-88 that you used to fly? Or are they similar to wing-mounted engines like the 763? I'm asking this irrespective of differences accountable to things like power, size and such.

2) About a year ago I was on a flight from ATL to SJO and we had an engine failure. We were on a 752 which, I think, was a problem that the NTSB had warned Delta about already based on some research I did after the incident (the problems Delta has had with 757-232s with certain P&W engines was referenced earlier in the thread). I've seen you say that you've only had a few engine failures in your whole career so, if Delta is having this problem on a repeated basis do you think they're doing anything irresponsible by continuing to fly this fleet of 752s with P&W engines? Oddly enough, my blog entry about this trip actually ranks #1 in Google for "Delta Engine Failure".

3) Last August I flew on the 772 ATL-JNB. As I understand it, it's the longest range airliner in the world with the most powerful commercial turbofan jet engines in history. I am wondering if the JNB-ATL leg is among the most difficult takeoffs in the world during the South African summer due to the elevation of JNB (5500 feet), the number of people aboard, the size of the plane, the fuel for a 16-17 hour flight and the possible heat during the summer. By most difficult I mean requiring the most lift. I know that the regulations assume one engine failure on takeoff for calculation purposes but I have to believe that this sort of takeoff strains even the GE monsters on the 772.

4) While over in Africa on that trip, we took a lot of small bush planes with a single pilot. Some of them were Cessnas, some of them were some companies I'd never heard of like the Britten-Norman BN-2 Islander plane we flew in -- but none of them were remotely comfortable. We had elephants on the runways and such. What sort of danger is one placing oneself flying in these little planes as opposed to the big jumbo jets? Or is it pretty much pilot/maintenance/weather dependent?

I have tons of other questions but I won't attack you all at once. Thanks again for this awesome thread.

EDIT: Oh yea, if you ever find yourself in Grand Cayman, drinks on me

I to am a big fan of Mayday and there is a version that is widely available on Youtube. It's the same episodes but the narrator is British.

A lot of them are available on this channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/VibraciaX

Are there any speed limits on taxiways for aircraft? I've seen some ramps/taxiways with painted roads for service vehicles etc. I'm guessing they must yield to any aircraft.

I was hoping to ask Salt Lake Center about this last night (flying the red-eye from LAS to JFK), but we went from L.A. Center to Denver Center and never talked to Salt Lake.

This really surprises me. You're not kidding me are you? I can't imagine a combat aircraft that depends on having a key to start it.

we're not talking about some 763 here. IT'S A BLACKHAWK.

Getting an FAA checkride, except for a new license or rating, is a pretty rare event and it's a random thing, so you might go several years without having one or you could have two in a month.

I've always had very positive experiences with FAA inspectors. Most of them were in aviation before getting hired by the FAA (maybe for an airline that went out of business, like Eastern or Braniff) and they bring a lot of experience to the job. There's variations in the personalities, of course, but the ones I've met seem genuinely interested in safety as the bottom line.

When a Fed comes along for a checkride, he is usually just observing (unless he feels there is a an immediate safety consideration) and most of the time will have very few, if any, comments after the ride. A lot of time they relate good, relevant information about the hot topics being looked at by the FAA or what kind of problems they've been seeing out in the industry.

It's with the company check airmen and examiners that I see the wide range of types you allude to. The casual guy is sometimes referred to as a "Santa Claus" -- you'd have to really work at getting a bust from him. The ball busters are there too. We had some extreme types like this at ACA. They seemed to relish handing out pink slips on check rides or busting a guy on a line check. I never had any problems with this type. One method was to let them "teach" you something during the line check and that would acknowledge their superior position on the aviation hierarchy.

[Full disclosure: I was a check airman at my previous job and I probably tended toward the "Santa Claus" end of the spectrum.]

Nope, not kidding. I've been told they used to be keyless but they changed them all after this incident. It's never been an issue in combat. If we're going out on a scheduled mission we're going to have preflight complete and a runup complete well before our scheduled take off time so there's hardly ever any unexpected issues that come up. And we've got a set number of helicopters ready to go in the same way for any contingency missions. If we forget the key we would find out on that first runup.

That's too bad. Thanks though!

Re ERAM it's still in test phases and not 24hr operational yet at ZLC. It's got a long way to go to fully overtake with the current NAS system for passing flight plans and whatnot.

I know that this might not be your particular area of expertise but I am completely at a loss as to how major airlines make any profit?

ive seen some quotes like 390 gallons a minute of fuel used!!! that is incredible ive just checked here : http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/economi...itor/index.htm and it says that jet fuel costs aprox 87c a gallon that 339.3 a minute (on av) and obviously take off uses much more fuel.
then you have the initial cost of purchasing the planes which arent cheap (although I know that most of the low-cost airlines in europe rent them)
Then the airport rights and landing charges aswell as wages etc

i think its incredible that they are still in business

i just quickly searched for a heathrow- JFK flight Return (03/02/2010) at a cost of $1854
http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/en/gb...ssingStatus.do

according to the website the flight is 8 hours = a minimum of $325,728 worth of fuel (and that doesnt include the extra fuel you mentioned that is need just incase)
that means you need to be carrying 176 passengers just to pay for the fuel the plane (an Airbus A340-600) only holds 380 and that doesnt include wages, airport fee's and the initial cost of the plane.

Also just like to say thanks for the effort you have put into this thread its been a really interesting read

This one's easy: They don't make any profit, they lose money like it's their job

i think i remember reading somewhere (airframe maybe?) that as a whole the airline industry has made a loss for it's entire history.

I've heard that one too and it may well be true. Leo Mullins' compensation (salary, bonuses and "parting gifts") from Delta Air Lines was more than Delta has made in its entire history.

I was really thinking of the "quality of life" hit I would take. It's not that the DC-9 would be so bad (after all, it's just the "original" of the MD-88) but the kind of schedules I would get on the DC-9 would be much less desirable than what I have on the 767.

And it's not that Detroit is undesirable, but the commute to Detroit would much less convenient than my current commute from DC to NY.

What you're referring to here is often called a RAT, for Ram Air Turbine, or ADG, for Air Driven Generator and will provide for some minimum flight control capability and/or electrical power.

The CRJ has one that will automatically deploy from the right side of the nose of the airplane in flight if both main AC electrical buses lose power (as in the case of a dual engine failure, or some very serious electrical problem). The prop on this thing is very small, about 10" in diameter, and sounds like a little buzz saw when it deploys. I used to flight test these on the RJ (later they developed a model of the ADG that didn't require an inflight test). The test was required every 180 days and it only took about 20 minutes of flying time. We'd go out around midnight, takeoff out of Dulles, shut off the electrical generators and confirm that the ADG deployed and that it provided electrical power (we had the APU running as a backup in case the ADG didn't deploy or didn't work properly).

In the 767, the RAT deploys only in the case of dual engine failure (click here for one real life example) and its purpose is to power the flight control portion of the center hydraulic system.

For both of these aircraft, the RAT needs a minimum of 130 kts airspeed to be functional.

I often wondered about this when I flew the commuters and now that I'm flying international I've never seen or heard anything that confirms this to be true. Maybe some of our ATC readers can comment.

I must have missed something. "first few pages" of what?

I took the bus to Monaco once (and the train back to Nice) and I walked around and got some pictures, but I didn't go in the casino. Some other crew members told me there's a few just to walk in the place of about 15 Euro.

I'm not familiar with those places, but I've been to Antibbes and Cannes, which are just west of Nice.

Flying in to Nice, we usually land to the Northeast (runway 4L or 4R), but occasionally the winds make a landing the opposite direction necessary. This approach brings us very close in to the beach and the controllers are concerned that we stay out over the water. It's interesting the way they phrase it: "Delta 82, you are cleared for the approach to runway 22 Right. Stay above the water."

Ow, my head hurts!

Airspeed and altitude are interchangeable to some extent. You trade altitude for airspeed, as you note, by lowering the nose and you can trade off excess airspeed to gain altitude also. A flight maneuver that pilots practice in primary training (or was it for the commercial license?...not sure) called a Chandelle consisted of a course reversal with maximum altitude gain. To get the maximum altitude, you would add power but you would also trade off airspeed until you were right down near stall speed when you rolled out. A good demonstration of the relationship between airspeed and altitude.

In normal flight, we know we need to raise the nose (increase the angle of attack) to climb, but the increased AOA means more drag and that means airspeed will start to bleed off, so we increase power to compensate and to maintain airspeed. If we continue to increase pitch, we will get to a point where it requires more power to go slower due to the increased drag. This is called the backside of the power curve (the portion of the curve between "stall" and "minimum power airspeed").

If we were to simply increase power in level flight, the plane would begin to accelerate. This acceleration would result in more lift being produced by the wing and the airplane would begin climbing. To avoid this climb we would have to exert more forward pressure on the wheel (or roll in down trim), which is what we would do if, for example, ATC asked us to increase speed from 280 kts to 300 kts.

in 2002 i was allowed into the cockpit of a flight from neice to manchester airport. I was actually given a seat and was allowed to sit in the cockpit with the two pilots as we landed...it was amazing the landing is so much smoother at the front (im guessing because the nose is still slightly up as the back two wheels touchdown).
At the time i was just 12 (not sure if the rule only applies to over 18s, and also not sure if it applies to euro airlines)
worth the trip to monaco if you ever go WOXOF really nice!!

An acquaintance who is in the airline business told me that an old joke in the industry goes like this:

"Question: what's the fastest way to make a small fortune in the airline business?

Answer: Start with a large one."

---

To echo everyone else, a 1,001 thanks to OP for this thread. I look forward to catching up on new posts at the end of each day. A few questions from a reader in Canada's Eastern Arctic:

Are you able to watch the new reality show "Ice Pilots: NWT" in the U.S.? If not, it's worth hunting for on DVD in a few months' time; some spectacular shots of the Arctic from the subject airline's old DC-3s, and the somewhat chilly (-40) winter working conditions may make you glad that you fly in the deep south!

About once a month, a major international carrier flying to or from Europe needs to make an emergency landing in Iqaluit (CYFB; the location where Airbus cold-tested the A380) to drop off a passenger who's had a medical incident ... ever had to do this?

Unsurprisingly for a reader of this thread, I cherish the memories of cockpit visits in years past, including one memorable hour spent in the jumpseat of an AC A320 landing in Toronto. If I read one of your replies to an earlier question correctly, cockpit visits are still permitted ... in the current climate of Airworld paranoia, I was surprised (but not at all disappointed) to read this ... or did your reply only apply to visits at the end of a flight? If so, it's sad ... all kids should have the chance to make a visit during flight (and pilots should get extra for enduring the pestering of urchins).

The discussions about language proficiency with respect to cockpit-ATC communications interest me greatly. While I understand the use of English as the international language and can appreciate why a native German-speaker flying a Lufthansa jet to Tokyo will use English to communicate with the native Japanese-speaking controllers, what about in a situation when, for example, a Japanese-speaking JAL pilot is landing in Osaka ... wouldn't it make more sense for both cockpit and tower to communicate in their mutually-understood mother tongues, in order to reduce the risk of *any* misunderstanding? This has always puzzled me, but I'm sure that the explanation will be clear.

Again, thanks for a fantastic thread.

There aren't speed limits that I'm aware of and the airplane doesn't have a speedometer, only an airspeed indicator that doesn't really start registering airspeed until about 40 kts (which is way too fast to be taxiing). However, I did hear of a pilot getting an FAA violation at EWR for excessive taxi speed, but my guess is that the pilot was cited under FAR 91.13(b), which states:

As for ground service vehicles, you are correct: they must always yield to aircraft

OP, great posts and thanks for taking the time to provide your interesting insights.

I've always wondered about test pilots. I can understand that today's computers in the hands of a structural engineer can crunch out a stress analysis in record time but I can't picture myself attempting to become airborne in a vehicle that has never before left the ground -- particularly the first plane off the assembly line of a new type.

Are there certain routes that test pilots will fly to provide more options for an emergency landings? Are these pilots equipped with any additional equipment? Is there any way to eject or parachute off of those planes if need be? Are there a bunch of engineers on board that monitor special equipment or do pilots bring their girlfriends to listen for odd sounds?

Obviously, this wasn't a U.S. carrier. No passenger is allowed into the cockpit (or "flight deck", as they like us to refer to it now) in flight. I've mentioned having visitors to the cockpit in some previous posts and I may not have been clear that these visits were all while at the gate with the boarding door open.

I've heard the same joke about making a small fortune in Las Vegas.


I'll have to look for that DVD. I've never flown in those severe conditions, but when I was in a partnership on a Piper Turbo Arrow, we had a special "oil warmer" installed. This was a special mod that allowed us to plug in the plane after parking it in the hangar and the oil would be kept from congealing in the extreme cold of the winter. It makes a huge difference when starting the plane on a freezing morning (and avoids the extreme wear you get while waiting for the oil to warm up).

I've had Iqaluit as one of our ETOPS divert fields for an ocean crossing, in cases where St. Johns or Gander had inadequate weather for divert purposes. (For ETOPS, we have to always be within 180 minutes of a suitable landing strip.) So far, I've never had to divert. Came close to going into Keflavik once when we had a passenger pass out, but a doctor was found on board and the passenger regained consciousness.

I probably wasn't clear...these visits are usually during the boarding process but we also welcome passengers during deplaning, but never in flight.

We often hear pilots and controllers talking in their native language. I've heard this in Brazil, Canada (French), Russia, Italy... the list goes on. I don't know if this is technically some kind of ICAO infraction or not, but it goes on all the time.