In spite of your beautifully rendered drawing, I'm having trouble picturing exactly what you saw. If you didn't see the other plane (i.e. you saw only the contrail), then it's quite possible that you had many miles of separation.

Altitude differences can be quite deceiving with no other reference, but even if this was at your altitude, you would only need a few minutes for the other plane to be 5-10 mile away when you flew near its contrail.

Well, if there were yells of alarm from passengers then I would have to wonder about the situation. Still, as I said, a plane can pass 1000' over or under you and it looks like they're on a collision course when they're just a few miles away.

As N 82 50 24 commented, this has been discussed itt and there are a couple of very good examples of successful dead stick landings, including civilian airliners and military fighter jets.

And, I assume, "random" sea state conditions?

Harder to answer with any certainty...there just haven't been many ditchings to judge this by. The recent famous ditching in the Hudson was just about a best case scenario for such an event (still...glad it wasn't me faced with that; Sully is my hero). Out in the open ocean, I think it would be pretty likely that the plane would get down in one piece if the water was reasonably calm but I wouldn't want to try it.

Although we would always like to takeoff and land into the wind, there are other considerations behind selecting the active runways at a large airport. Most airports have a favorite configuration which allows for the most efficient handling of arrivals, departures and ground handling. They will tend to use this configuration if the winds allow it, even if that means a crosswind (or in some cases, a slight tailwind).

When winds start to shift, it's not a minor thing to change the runways in use, especially during periods of heavy traffic. The flow of arrivals and departures change depending on the runways being used and a runway change can mean holding patterns for arrivals or extensive delays for departures while they "turn the airport around."

At LGA, the runways are perpendicular and one will be used for departures while the other is used for landings. You can have a situation where the traffic departing on 31 has winds right down the runway while the landing traffic on 4 has a direct left crosswind. Given a choice, I'd prefer my crosswind on takeoff rather than landing but we're not given the choice.

As the winds shift, it's often up to the pilots to notify the controllers when they become unacceptable. As the winds starts shifting to a tailwind, ATC is still reluctant to switch the direction of landing and it sometimes takes a pilot to say "unable" when given a clearance to takeoff or land. In general, we can accept up to a 10 knot tailwind, but it's not something we like.

For the Boeing 757/767 the maximum crosswind component used by my company is 29 knots. I don't know about other models, so I can't answer the second part of this question.

Yes. Gusty crosswinds are the biggest challenge.

Heck, I've had less than stellar landings in ideal conditions. I can't speak for others, but crosswinds don't make me nervous. If it's very gusty, it can be a little more intense but the approach and landing is the best part of any flight for the pilot.

In relation to the Air France NOVA that's been mentioned recently, it sounds like these guys dealt with a lot of the same issues, except they were coming off 3 hours of autopilot and all their meters relating their airspeed failed.

Has something like this ever happened to you where you lost those signals? I know nothing about planes so the only thing I can equate it to is if the speedometer of my car stopped working and I had to keep it between 50 and 60 or I would stall the car and kill everyone aboard.

Fwiw, the pilots that worked in the simulator afterwards and were given the circumstances faced by crashing Air France flight succeeded just fine. The doc ended up making it sound like the pilots were late to react and increase the air speed causing a stall that banked hard and rendered dipping the nose to create more lift almost useless. To me it sounds like pilot error. If the **** completely hits the fan shouldn't the first thing a pilot does be maintaining a safe airspeed?

Final point: JFC this doc scared me even more. And PBS followed it up with a rehash of the Tenerife disaster which makes me feel like I'm not even safe on the ground taxiing anymore. I really should just avoid watching these docs.

I am not sure if I am going to be flying a CO. I want to actually demote my self and go into WOCS. As a WO my only job would be to fly and my flight time would be a lot higher.

That is the one thing my parents have been telling me. As you probably know people do not go straight into the Apache after basic training. Most Apache pilots, or what I have read about them, fly the Apache after some years flying the Black Hawk. However, flying the Apache has been a goal of mine since I have been little and one I intend to fulfill. No one can deny that the Apache is a sexy machine.

Great thread for an airplane geek like me.

1 thing drives me nuts though. People asking a question that has been asked 5 times before. If it's a Q & A thread, read it before asking your question because on a long ass thread chances are it has been asked before. Is it that people are too lazy to read? OP has done a wonderful job on this thread, don't waste his time because you don't want to read or search. Whew, ok, got that off my chest, bugs me on other sites too. OP, if you come to San Diego, I've got the bar tab. Don't come now though, the weather is horrible. It actually rained today.

Your car scenario sounds vaguely familiar...reminds me of a movie I saw once. You have to keep the car at a certain speed and if you fall outside that speed range, you crash and everyone dies. I wish I could remember the name of the movie.

To make this a decent comparison, you'd also have to do it on a foggy night on a road with constantly changing grade and bank (to fool your inner ear somewhat).

Absolutely. But with a frozen-over pitot-static system, their airspeed readings were useless. At this point, you use secondary indications: pitch and power. It's something we practice in initial and instrument training.

I still have my little 3" circular suction cups I used to cover up one or more instruments (e.g. airspeed indicator or artificial horizon) when I was giving instruction. The exercise taught the student to use the other instruments. Of course, one thing that made the training situation easier was that it was readily apparent which instrument was useless. In the real world, the failure of an airspeed indicator can be much harder to pick up on. It might be an unreliable reading with a needle (or digital readout) that's still moving or it could just become frozen in place (which would be easier to pickup on).

I'm going to recurrent training in March and I expect to see a scenario related to this. We have a new memory item for unreliable airspeed (we use memory items when the event requires immediate response, i.e. no time for a checklist). The response it basically to revert to basic flying: turn off the auto-pilot, auto-throttles and flight director; fly the plane using normal pitch and power settings. I expect the hardest part of the scenario will be recognizing the degradation/failure of the airspeed readout.

Tenerife was a tragedy with a lot of links in the error chain. It was primarily caused by the human error of the KLM Captain's decision to begin a takeoff roll without confirmation that he was cleared. Contributing to this mistake was the language issue and stepped-on communications (i.e. two transmissions at once). As a result of Tenerife and other runway incursion incidents, procedures changed. One change is that whenever a plane is cleared onto the runway, they are told of any landing traffic and/or any traffic on the runway, crossing the runway or about to cross the runway. For example: "American 157, line up and wait runway one four. Traffic on 5 mile final. Additional traffic will cross downfield."

You might ask why they don't just wait until the runway is completely clear and available before they clear a plane onto it, but they are trying to keep up the departure/arrival rate and they want the plane ready to go without the added delay of slowly lumbering onto the runway.

I'm not sure if that's allowed. The whole idea behind ROTC is the military spends 4 years paying for your college education and grooming you to become a great future military leader. In exchange you owe them X number of years. They're going to want those years as an O-grade officer. Beyond that I guess you could take a demotion but the only time I've seen that was a National Guard guy, and that was only because they've got some funky rules and it was either take the demotion or retire for him.

If you want to go to WOCS why don't you just skip college and go straight there? That's how I did it. Well, actually I spent almost 3 years enlisted first but that's only because my recruiter didn't realize you could go straight from civilian -> WOCS/flight school. I guess "That's how I should have done it" would be more accurate.

Actually it's the other way around. Although most pilots pick their airframe in flight school and stick with that their entire careers (not that you can't switch, I just don't know anyone who wants to), I think there are more Apache -> Black Hawk converts than there are Black Hawk -> Apache converts. If for no other reason than this helicopter exists and is in use. I realize you've got your goals but there's nothing wrong with adjusting them a bit higher.

Funny story, I happened to read this and my wife is a LTC in Personnel and happens to be in a meeting with a bunch of people that would be able to give you a pretty firm answer. So, there will be an update later.

But, if I had to guess...you signed a contract and you have to be Commissioned. I would have done anything to have gotten to go to the 160th at Campbell and done the kind of flying they do though as the other poster suggested. It is important flying and you get to hang around nice people obviously. Plus, you can spend free time at the Land Between the Lakes which is always nice. : )
..................

After the admonishment from the one poster above I will try to make my way through all 32 pages of this thread before I come back with my basic questions about getting started flying. lol Thanks for the thread WOXOF and if you are going to be in ATL do pm me as I live 20 min from the Delta HUB.

The update is...that nobody is quite sure. It would require a pretty extreme exception to policy, and it would probably not be in your best interest to do so anyhow. Soooo, good luck if that is really what you decide. All the best, and thanks for your service.

Ok, had another interesting landing, well...it was really before the landing. We landed to the North on 33L at BWI. On final, we were flying North of the airport and circled around to the South and then North for landing. While North of the airport we experienced some pretty moderate turbulence. It was clear, 10 mile visiability and it seemed we where below 10,000 AGL. Could it have been the wake from a jet that had just taken off to the North? How is departing wake factored in this situation (landing planes crossing the ascent of departing planes? Thx!

Awesome thread, I didn't read the whole thing b/c it would take 3 days. Anyways I fly Remote Control Helicopters which are very fascinating. Not the 200$ ones at Radio Shack. These are 1,500 or more w/ electronics. You ever fly helis or planes?

On a side note. I flew threw a Major Thunderstorm once and it was the most frightening I ever experienced. I seriously was scared. The planes lights were flickering. That was almost 10 years ago. I Just landed in Ft. Meyers. to visit some family for acouple of days. Smooth sailin.

I really applaud your attention to detail in this thread.

It could have been, but probably not. If it was wake turbulence, it would have had a very short duration, kind of like hitting a pothole. The only time wake turbulence lasts longer than a few seconds is if you're actually following in the path of a plane (and in that case, the lead plane would have to be at a higher altitude; wake turbulence "falls" at about 500 fpm).

I don't think the wake of departing traffic is considered at all. It's not usually a problem because the landing traffic is coming in from the opposite direction as the departing traffic. And in your case, where you started north of the field (where the departing traffic was), you were almost certainly above departing traffic until begin vectored to the south for the approach.

I've never done any RC flying, but it looks like fun.

It's been a long time since I flew through a thunderstorm and I'm trying to keep the streak going. I've got a trip to São Paulo next month and we almost always have to pick our way around some convective activity down there in the ITCZ.

My brother has a condo on a golf course near there, at a place called Bonita Springs. We're planning a golf trip there in the fall.

Thanks for the responses again. This is still my favorite thread on 2p2.

I just started instrument training and I disagreed with my instructor about something, but didn't feel it was important enough to argue over:

If you have the plane parked with the avionics on, and you push down on one of the wings, will the turn coordinator move? (the wings part, not the bubble part). I figure that it wouldn't, because the turn coordinator measures rate of change of heading, not bank angle. But I don't know how the gyro in there actually works.

Awesome thread! I've been a 2+2'r for awhile but didn't see this until someone on another discussion forum mentioned it! I'm at page 20 and will read the whole thing eventually...fast forwarded to the last page just to see if the OP was still updating...I see that he is; thanks!

You are absolutely right. For the same reason, you will see the "wings" on the turn coordinator dip when you make a turn while taxiing, even though the airplane's wings are not banking at all (i.e. the plane is level and simply turning like a car does).

It's taken me weeks to read through the entire thread. I wanted to do that before I posted anything, so as not to duplicate a previous question.

A few weeks back you mentioned the Firearms-Qualified Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program, although that was in reference to the FFDO who had his ticket pulled for posting videos of airport security problems. My question concerns another aspect of the FFDO program.

My understanding of the firearms handling procedure (which I suspect you can't discuss, even if you know about it) is that FFDOs carry their sidearms in a locked case, with the weapon in a special holster that is secured with yet another lock. The case and second lock can only be opened once the flight deck door is closed and locked, and the sidearm has to be re-locked in the holster and back in the locked case before the door is opened again. At least one unintended discharge of the sidearm has taken place on the flight deck. My understanding (which, again, I suspect you cannot confirm, even if you know) is that this took place while the FFDO was trying to secure the weapon in flight, prior to landing.

The sidearm, in the locked case, is carried by the FFDO to and from the airport. The FFDO keeps the case in his/her hotel room while on a layover.

As my screen name infers, I'm a former cop. I have no problem whatsoever with trained pilots being armed in flight. What concerns me is the way the weapons are being transported, stored, and put on/taken off on the flight deck. The process just asks for more unintended discharges or theft of the guns from hotel rooms, where there may not be secure storage for the gun case.

Cops have been using a far simpler system for many years. No one carries firearms inside a jail, where inmates could get control of them. When you arrive at the jail to book in or pick up a prisoner, you place your gun in a locker and remove the key. On leaving the jail, you reverse the process. I've never heard of anyone losing a gun this way (although cops do leave the jail and forget to pick up their guns--oops--now and then).

Why couldn't this be done at the airport? I suspect that it's a rare event for you to fly into an airport and then fly out of a different one. Each FFDO would arrive at the airport and go through security in the usual way, then pick up their sidearm at a gun locker in the crew lounge/briefing area before going to the aircraft. FFDOs would have to wear their jacket/uniform blouse when armed, in order to conceal the gun and holster. Once on the flight deck, you can take off the jacket. On arrival at the end of the flying day, put the gun and holster in another locker, and go home or to the hotel.

Is there some reason for the existing convoluted procedure that you can talk about?

That's how I heard it too and I don't think I'm violating any security policies by saying this.

I'm not a member of the FFDO program, which is entirely voluntary. For those who do volunteer, the training program must be completed during their time off between trips, i.e. the airline companies don't pay one cent of it. The training itself is free to the participant and I've heard it's really a top-notch program.

I've never owned a gun and that's the main reason I never considered being an FFDO. I'm not anti-gun, I just don't have my own. Another reason is that I question the effectiveness of the program. It doesn't make me feel one bit safer when the other pilot straps on a 9 mm in the cockpit. In fact, it just gives me one more thing to worry about. Still, there may be some deterrent value in having it known that the pilot could be armed.


I agree that it's a cumbersome procedure and could be greatly improved on. One of the big first steps would be to let the FFDOs carry their firearm on their person just as law enforcement officers do. I think, though I'm not sure, that some of the current procedures are a result of certain parties not really wanting the FFDO program in the first place. While they may not actively impede the program, they do little or nothing to facilitate it.

I have known about the "High School to Flight School" program for a while, but I always thought that the acceptance rate was very low because of the fact those in the program never went to college. With my background of flying do you think my personal acceptance rate would be higher? I really do not know to much of the program other than what is posted on the internet and I do not know how reliable it is.

WOXOF- I have enjoyed this thread for quite some time, like a novel, I read some, and put it down for months, then pick it up. Question for you - back in Nov I believe, I was ATL- PHL bound, but they cancelled my flight and send me to JFK with a connection to PHL, I never made it to PHL, I could tell you the nightmare of 19 hours of travel.

Anyway, when I was headed back to ATL the next day, there were a bunch of pilots on the 767, I was in business (guess this was a International bound flight after ATL). We pushed back and were on the ramp or taxiing and one of the deadhead pilots got up and grabbed the phone, was on there for a bit. Just a minute or so later the pilot came on and said we were going to pull over and wait for de-icing. I was perplexed to say the least.

If you are wondering what de-icing is it is simply taking off all the ice on the airfoils. Ice on wings can disrupt airflow over the wings and can greatly effect the lift of the A/C and cause drag.

My CFI almost crashed when taking off from Mammoth, California with icing problems.

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but what is your question? Are you asking what de-icing is, or are you looking for a comment about the phone conversation and the role the deadheading pilot played?

Sorry, I just surprised at what seemed like the deadhead pilot having to tell or remind the one in command to de-ice. I dont want you to think I insulting anyone, it was just a weird scene. Plus I was terribly sick

Not at all. I just wasn't sure what you were asking.

It might have been just as you surmise, i.e. the deadheading pilot brought something to the attention of the flight crew. It wouldn't be the first time. I'm assuming that you hadn't already been de-iced, right? Because if that were the case, it could be that the crew asked this pilot ahead of time to do a pre-takeoff check if they exceeded their holdover time and then give them an assessment.

(After primary de-icing, we consult a chart to come up with a holdover time, which is the time we have to get airborne. If we can't takeoff within the holdover time, we do a pre-takeoff check of the plane to see if there's been enough build-up of snow/sleet/ice to require secondary de-icing. This can mean that one of us comes back into the cabin to look at the wings. If I've got a deadheading pilot back there, I'll delegate that duty.)