Have watched before and can confirm def worth a watch. Loved this documentary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think this is a really interesting video about the design of airports. It's amazing how much thought goes into this stuff.

That channel has a lot of other videos on airplanes.

Hi W0X0F,

Just a question from the video above at around 8:50: it says that the Balanced Field Length is the amount of runway required to reach V1 and then the braking distance to a complete stop thereafter. The video says that the braking distance is always equal to the accelerate-to-V1 distance, but is that really true? Shouldn't the braking be different, usually shorter than the acceleration distance? Or is doubling acceleration distance to V1 just the legally required way to calculate balanced field length?

Hi W0X0F,

Last week, I was departing Lima, Peru going back to the states and noticed something peculiar about the runway usage: Planes were taking off and landing on the same runway but in *opposite* directions. Landings were to the south and takeoffs were to the north. A couple planes would land, a few minutes would pass, then a couple planes would depart (heading in the opposite direction), followed by more landings a few minutes later.

How unusual is this and what might be the reason? It would seem like landings and takeoffs would be in the same direction according to the wind. There wasn’t much wind that night. Did you ever fly into Lima, Peru when you were on the 757/767?

They did guide him away from heavy population areas, like a Pearl Jam concert in Seattle with over 15K people in attendance.



I am curious why simulators can do well for starting, taking off, maneuvering ... bit not so much for landing. Is landing, slowing down, stopping a hard to simulate learned skill?

It's easier than planting fruit trees.

Have to agree.

https://www.news-leader.com/story/ne...off/996802002/

Sadly, it's older than 30 days, so LiveATC doesn't have the archived audio available. Is this the case of left hand (ground) not knowing what the right hand (tower) is doing? Even though the driver said he was cleared, isn't it still his responsibility to look both ways?

How good is the BBQ that you're willing to drive in front of a plane on takeoff to get some?

Is this a common problem?

What's your take on a video like this? Does this accurately describe your early days with an airline? Is it being low man on the totem pole? Is it a regional airline that doesn't have the resources to make the situation better? Is it his decision to live away from the airport and have the commute?

I can see a video like this turning people off to the industry, but I can also see the candor of it opening some eyes and letting people know what they're in for if that's the situation.

I can relate to some of those gripes from my years as an FO at a commuter (aka regional) airline. But it sounds like PSA is a dreadful place to work.

(Before I comment on the airline issues, I've just got to say that I became mesmerized by this guy's floating left eyebrow.)

Yes, first year pay can be abysmal and that's the way it's always been. But he referred to a hiring bonus, which is something I haven't heard of but probably results from the serious manning issues that regionals are currently experiencing. It's definitely a pilot's job market right now whereas when I got hired at ACA in the early 90's pilots were actually paying for jobs. That's right. There was such competition for jobs that regional airlines required new pilots to pay for their own training. I wrote a check for $9,250 to cover my training costs and that didn't guarantee a job. If I busted the check ride, I wouldn't get a job.

Not living at your domicile is a decision many pilots and flight attendants make, and it's a personal choice. Obviously, life is easier living at your domicile: no commuting to work, no necessity for a crash pad or hotel rooms when stuck at your domicile. But you can be reassigned to another domicile as staffing requirements dictate (and sometimes domiciles close). Do you move every time? Many crew members choose to commute instead. I live in D.C. and fly out of New York. Part of that is because I don't want to live in New York and much of it is due to roots I have in D.C. (lots of friends, three brothers, my dad).

Commuting is definitely a quality of life hit. I pay $240/month for a bed in a crash pad (with 19 other pilots). I was there the last two nights because I had an early report on Wednesday for a round trip to Santo Domingo. First night there were two others guys in the house; second night there was one other guy there. I probably average 3-4 nights a month there and this is cheaper than getting hotel rooms, which are extensive in New York.

The really crappy thing that jumped out from this video is the lack of trip and duty rigs at PSA. This is the term used for contractual clauses which determine minimum pay for duty periods and multi day trips. He alluded to being paid a little over 12 hours for his five day trip. That is criminal! At Delta, we get paid a minimum of five hours per day, sometimes referred to as "suit up" pay. This incentivizes the company to use us effectively and not treat crew members like pieces of inventory that can be used for only a couple of hours a day. With such a provision, his five day trip would have paid 25 hours.

Commuter flying can be rough. Long duty days, lots of legs, and finding time to eat can be tough. The scene of his first flight, with the Captain rushing him to call for pushback, reflected poorly on that Captain. Rushing someone is never a good idea. It results in reduced margins of safety. In my crew brief, I specifically tell my FOs to ask for more time any time they need it, and to not let me rush them.

Life at a major airline is definitely better, but I look back fondly at my time at ACA. Lots of flying with great people. I still love the job and never dread going to work. Commuting is the only negative and that's self-inflicted.

But I understand this guy's love of "low and slow" flying as well as his affinity for teaching. I can relate and I may end up doing something similar when I'm forced to leave airline flying. He's probably a great instructor and we need guys like him out there.

Somewhat off-topic, but I thought W0X0F might be interested: You can see above (posted in 2013) he says he's never heard of this Helios crash, but four years prior in this same thread he had written this:

Not to engender any dementia worries or anything... the only reason I came across it was because I first heard about the Helios flight today because it was mentioned alongside a recent depressurization incident that made the news.

It's a little after 3 am here in Hawaii. I arrived yesterday for a 4-day visit to see friends and give my friend's 10 year-old grandson his first flight. Back in 1989, I gave the same friend's son his first flight when he was 14 years old. He went on to fly C-17s in the Air Force and is now a first officer with United.

My internal clock is a little screwed up, so I can't sleep. I go to twoplustwo, which experience tells me can often be the antidote for insomnia (mods: feel free to use that in advertising the site). I see your post and think "Holy sh*t, I might actually have dementia!"

So I go back to read the posts you quoted. But for some reason your last quote has no link attached and this makes the job harder. I search the thread for "Helios." The first few hits are from posters misspelling "helos" but I eventually find the post you quoted (#1032 from Dec 18, 2009). I read it, particularly the "smoking gun" reference:

Then I realize why I said I had never heard of this in later posts. It's because I had never heard of it. The reference I cited in that post was the result of a Google search I did so that I could provide a link for other readers and put the question in context for anyone interested in knowing more about the accident. That flight number still doesn't resonate with me the way other famous air disasters do (a good example is United 232, which used to be a staple case study in CRM training).

I hope this explains the apparent contradiction. It's been my habit at several points in this thread, when asked about particular accidents or incidents, to then provide a link for those flights.

Kudos to you for your thorough reading of this thread and finding this apparent discrepancy, though I'm still puzzled by the missing link on the last quote you included in your post.

So, for the moment, I think I'm still holding it together.

And here's a little more on that Helios flight. I see from the Wikipedia story that it was a 737. When I wrote my original response, I was flying the 757 and 767 and I incorrectly assumed that the pressurization panel on the 737 would be similar, since it's a Boeing.

On the 757/767, we set a landing field elevation and the plane's pressurization controller (which has a backup) controls the pressurization for the entire flight (assuming the AUTO mode is selected). On the 737, we set the final cruise altitude instead of the landing field elevation. The pressurization controller on the 737 works in a similar fashion, but uses that preset altitude to determine the portion of the pressurization schedule that the airplane is in. So from takeoff until cruise altitude is achieved, we're in the climb schedule portion. Once we achieve that altitude, the logic changes to the cruise schedule and when we descend from that attitude we are in the descent schedule.

I'm not trying to give a complete explanation of this system, only to state that not all Boeings operate the same way, as I erroneously assumed in my posts on this accident. To be honest, they don't teach a lot about the system's logic anymore, only what corrective action is to be taken if it doesn't operate normally.

What could I possibly add to this thread?

This.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c47k...ature=youtu.be

Seeing is believing.

Wow. I'm always amazed by people with that level of discipline for a craft. Very cool.

Ryanair Exposes Cabin Crew For “Staging” Photo - https://onemileatatime.com/ryanair-exposes-cabin-crew/

Are there any FAA regulations governing top speed? Could a billionaire build or buy the equivalent of an F-15 (without armaments) and tool around in it at Mach 2.5?

You can't break the sound barrier. In the 60's it wasn't all that uncommon, but I can see where it could break windows and whatnot, because ours rattled pretty good.

You can buy a T-38, the trainer version of the F-5, and little brother to the F-20 Tigershark, for a little over a million bucks. Top speed is mach 1.3.

Coincidentally, on NOVA tonight there was the SST development in the 60's and 70's. And also NASA's current research on making quieter sonic booms.

did the pilots do anything wrong on SwissAir flight 111?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111

just found this post. did they actually try to fly back to Boston?

Bump for info from our resident pro, and for conspiracy theories & speculation from everyone else.