In his defense, he had 90 minutes of the vibration to sort out the problem before they landed. He might have had nothing else to do at that moment.

I don't understand why he didn't shut that engine down though. Any ideas why he might not have, W0X0F?

Perhaps he couldn't ascertain which engine was the problem. It's not a black and white situation. Let's say I have a vibration of indeterminate origin. If my engine indications are normal, the vibration could be originating elsewhere, perhaps in the bleed air system or maybe a loose or open panel on the plane's exterior. I'm not going to shut down a normally operating engine.

But let's say that one of my engines is exhibiting higher than normal oil pressure, but not hitting the red line. Do I shut it down? Probably not without a discussion with Maintenance Control. If the engine pressure or temp is above red line, it becomes a much easier call.

But, even if I've completed my own checklist and troubleshooting efforts, discussions with Maintenance Control and/or Dispatch would be far more useful and effective than soliciting prayers. And, as someone pointed out, such an announcement from the pilot could have the very negative effect of causing panic. I know it would have that effect on me. I'd be questioning the competency and sanity of the guy who has my life in his hands.

I am not an atheist. I completely agree with the above.

Even though I am an atheist I completely agree one doesn't have to be one to think the pilot made the situation worse for the passengers

Are all pilots nerds? It seems like the ones I talk to all are. Also, every time I pop my head into the cockpit when boarding to ask for trading cards, I usually drop an Airplane reference and it always kills. "We're all counting on you" is a can't miss winner for sure. That's not really a question, just wanted to share, I'll take my answer off air.

We have our fair share (and I might be one of them), but there are plenty that don't come close to nerddom.

Nerd, heal thyself.

Just about every pilot I know loves a good "Airplane" reference. The one you mention was once delivered to one of our shuttle crews by none other than Leslie Nielsen himself. I believe I shared that story elsewhere itt.

The guys who really know movie references are the ex-Navy fighter or attack pilots (not so much with P-3 guys) due to their sea duty and the need to kill time between flights.

Pilots hand out trading cards? I've never seen this, would have entertained my son on our last flight.

I always have some in my flight bag for the plane I'm flying, but I think I've only given them to kids.

My friend that has owned two planes and flies as much as he can is a machinist, rides a Harley or Victory, used to be in the Huns motorcycle gang, er, club, carries a pistol and lord knows what else everywhere he goes, shaves his head and is half covered with tattoos. Not a nerd.

I went to a college which at the time was mostly for pilots who were looking to become professional aviators and yes there were a lot of nerd-like kids. Unfortunately there were not many parties on weekends, and hardly and drinking so weekends in rural New Hampshire were very quiet for the most part. (I am not a nerd fwiw)

First post, long-time reader. Thanks for the extremely engaging reading material - it's kept me awake and glued to my phone on early morning train commutes for the past 6 months or so!

I was on a Spirit flight from OAK to BWI the other day and noticed two things.

1. Left aileron was a bit "up" for almost the entire flight (except for turns). On other flights I've been on, it seems much more "flush" with the wing. Why would this be? Is it some kind of trim adjustment?

Here are two pics:
https://ibb.co/ewEdsk
https://ibb.co/njpBCk

2. Engine noise was "pulsing," kind of like if you were to push a vacuum cleaner forward and backwards on carpet over and over. Every 2 seconds, it would get louder and vibrate a bit more, off and on. Is this a sign of some minor engine issue?

It does look like the left aileron is slightly up, indicating that the crew has probably rolled in a right rudder trim, which caused the autopilot to put in some left aileron to counteract it.

I've watched many pilots do this because they notice that the slip indicator (the "ball" at the bottom of the turn and slip indicator on older planes and something that's graphically represented on the Primary Flight Display on modern aircraft) is not perfectly centered.

Many pilots recall from their primary instruction that it's important to keep that ball centered for coordinated flight. The way to do this is to "step on the ball," i.e. of the ball is out to the right, push on right rudder to bring it back to the center. But doing this will also cause the airplane to have a slight right banking tendency, so then the pilot counteracts with some left aileron.

A problem can arise when pilots make this correction using the rudder trim tab while the plane is flying on autopilot. A pilot sees the ball out of center to the right and rolls in right rudder trim to center the ball. The autopilot now rolls in left aileron up to counteract the right turn effect off the rudder trim input.

So now you have a plane holding its heading, but with the aileron slightly in the slipstream and some corresponding opposite rudder also in the slipstream. The plane flies straight, but drag is being unnecessarily increased. The correct method when a pilot sees that the plane isn't in trim is to take the airplane off of autopilot and apply necessary inputs manually and then trim out the pressures being held. Once this is done, the autopilot is re-engaged.

This is simply a "beat" that is generated by the engines being out of sync. This is much more of a problem on prop planes, but also noticeable with jet engines. Most jet planes and turboprop planes have automatic synchronization systems, but they don't always do a good job.

Thanks, W0X0F! Makes sense.

Wox---I suspect you've seen this---apparently, the crew of an AirCanada flight on approach into 28R in SFO found itself lined up instead with taxiway Charlie, overflying 4 planes in queue and then going around. How can this possibly happen? I assume that the simple fact that runways are lit up differently ought to be a clue to the pilot flying, yes? And, more importantly perhaps, why didn't the other guy/gal pipe up to the effect of "hey, pal, what the f*** are you doing?

This is absolutely unbelievable to me, but humans will always find a way to screw up. This incident occurred just before midnight so you're right that the lighting should have been a sufficient indicator. Runway lights, and the approach lighting system which lead to the runway, are bright and visible from miles away. Taxiway lights (blue edge lights and, for larger airports, green centerline lights) are much dimmer and almost invisible during the approach phase. (For examples, Google "runway lights" and look at the images.) I'm astounded that these guys found a way to line up on the taxiway at night.

I eagerly await the results of this investigation.

Recently I flew into MSP. We landed on the left runway and I was sitting at a window on the right side. As we turned right to go to our gate I was able to see the next plane for takeoff already sitting on the runway as well as the next plane coming in to land. For whatever reason I decided to watch to see both the takeoff and landing.

The plane on the runway did not move for what I thought was a long time and of course the incoming plane kept getting closer. I just started to think, "this is getting too close" when the plane on the runway moved and turned off the runway just as the incoming plane pulled up to go around.

What could have caused the delay on the runway? I know it would just be a guess but my thought was that the pilots had to have received some sort of warning light.

And how close can the incoming plane get before calling off the landing? Judging from how fast it flew over us there is no way it could have made the landing even if the other plane would have taken off as normal. Were they just hoping the plane on the runway would get out of the way and it was just a little too late?

How often does this happen?

It's not a common occurrence. From the fact that the plane sitting in position finally pulled off the runway, a few scenarios come to mind. It's possible that the departure fix for this plane shut down due to weather, so the tower couldn't issue a takeoff clearance. This seems unlikely as it would usually be known before issuing the clearance to taxi onto the runway. And you didn't mention weather in the area.

Another possibility is that this crew had just recently started the second engine and needed to wait for the minimum warmup time before advancing the throttles for takeoff. Again, this would be known before taxiing into position and the crew should notify the tower that they needed the time. I've been in this situation and had the tower clear me into position and told to advise when I'm ready to go. Anyway, this situation by itself doesn't seem likely at all since the airplane ended up exiting the runway.

So that leaves me with the scenario of something coming up that prevented the crew from departing. It could even be combined with the previous scenario, i.e. they were cleared into position and waiting for the final 15 seconds of engine warmup. Then, when they advanced the throttles, they got some erroneous indication which necessitated exiting the runway.

During the time while they got the indication and informed the tower, the controller had to decide what to do with the landing aircraft. Once the decision was made for the departing aircraft to exit the runway, the tower determined that he wouldn't actually clear the runway completely in time and so he had to send the landing aircraft around.

Aggravating for the landing aircraft, and it was probably the last leg of a four day trip for the crew, with minimum time to make their commuting flight home. At least, that's how it usually goes.

btw, it's also possible that the landing aircraft shares some blame. Back when I was flying sideways on the 727 (flight engineer), we were flying our last leg into CVG. It was the FOs leg and beautiful weather. Approach control called out the traffic we were following and we called it in sight. The controller then cleared us for the visual approach to the runway and we were told to maintain "visual separation." The FO, anxious to get on the ground and scurry off to his commute home, kept the speed up. I was watching over his shoulder, thinking he was pushing it too close (not too close from a safety standpoint, but so close that the preceding plane wouldn't have time to exit the runway for our landing).

Sure enough, by the time he dirtied up the plane and got on final approach speed, we were within two mile of the landing aircraft. And when that plane went by the first two turnoffs from the runway after landing, we were over the approach lights. Tower told us to go around, so it was over 10 minutes more before we got on the ground.

So, in your case, a contributing factor could be that the landing aircraft was pushing it.

Maybe there was fog? It was SFO, the airport that the chinese airliner crewed by Sum Ting Wong and We To Low had problems at.

Those guys (along with the rest of the crew: Ho Li *** and Bing Dang Ow) made an approach in visual conditions. I assume, based on the reports that the crew said it looked like there were planes on the runway, that this approach was in VMC also.

Sounds like the pilot is saying "Good evening, ... cleared for the visual"

If so, they would have received that clearance from the approach-controller.

So maybe, since it was "just" a visual, they didn't bother with ILS radio setups etc (which I'm guessing is probably not standard procedure)

Here's the audio of ATC / other plane(s) on the ground :
https://forums.liveatc.net/index.php....0;attach=9480

00:25 "Where's this guy going ? He's on the taxiway !"

Very strange that they didn't use the ILS. I see the NOTAM says 28L ILS is out of service, also VOR/DME, but 28R looks to be in operation.

Hi W0X0F, another question inspired by the Air Canada incident at SFO.

How far ahead can you see things below the plane's altitude when you're getting close to touching down? (hopefully that question makes sense). I'm guessing it depends on the aircraft type and cockpit windows, but would a pilot know if there's a plane on the ground directly below them? Or would you only be able to see things below you if they're like 1,000 feet ahead of you, for example. I'm guessing this sight issue is made worse by the fact that the plane is a bit angled-up just before touchdown.

If I understand your question correctly, you seem to be asking if there's a chance that planes on the runway might not be seen by the landing aircraft. The answer is no. The entire landing surface is visible throughout the (visual) approach. It's true that we have a slight nose up attitude during approach, but we still have good forward visibility.

Thanks! I was thinking the visibility would be worse than that (like when driving: if a small dog or cat is right in front of the vehicle, you wouldn't be able to see it...but it would be visible if it were 5-10 feet in front of the car).

Since you say there is good forward visibility, it makes me wonder how the Air Canada flight proceeded to get so close to the planes sitting on the taxiway.

W0X0F

Is it SOP (for your airline) to tune in an available ILS, even when / before cleared for a visual approach?

And if so, is it then SOP to check the ILS to verify the rwy ?