What an awesome thread. I have a couple of questions too, these are pretty general so I'm sure other people than OP can reply too:


1) If a big passenger plane is forced to crash land for some reason, on what kind of terrain do the people on board have the best chance of survival? (If it's on water, let's say it's near a beach so rescuers will get there soon).

2) Are the any good books on plane crashes? Basically I read the plane crash part on Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers" and now I want to read more. Also at some point on his "Blink" Gladwell recommends some book about flying but I can't find that part anymore, does anyone happen to remember what its name was?

3) OP: at some point in this thread (I read like 75% of this all) you said something about some pilots being so shady that you wouldn't ever want to fly with them. Can you give examples of the stuff they're doing wrong? What are the most common things pilots/officers do wrong that can result in accidents?

2) NTSB reports actually make great reading. They are almost always linked from wikipedia pages of notable crashes.

@W0X0F

UIO to ATL on the 29th of November. If you're flying that plane, would you throw out a "What's up badafro?" on the PA for me?

I think he only flies out of JFK

Yeah I know, I've read a lot of them. But I'm searching for an actual book, since I like to read books when I... err, fly to poker tournaments.

This thread is extremely entertaining. I think this is the best thread at 2p2 to be honest.
Getting really pissed of tho cause my pages when im logged in shows 50 posts, but then after inactivity (reading the whole thing) i log out and it goes back to like 2 posts a page which confuses me.
Anyway well done. So ive gotta contribute with a question.
Any experience of Arlanda, Sweden ? We are basically neighbours.

I haven't been to Stockholm yet, which is our only destination in Sweden. I see on my chart that Arlanda is just to the north of Stockholm.

I've flown over Sweden several times on my way to/from Moscow and Kiev. On those flights we usually cross Sweden well north of Stockholm, around Ostersund and Sundsvall.

Being consistent in the use of the checklist makes it a lot easier. We have the added benefit in the airlines of having another pilot to help remember it. More than once I've had the other guy say "You want that Descent checklist now?" External distractions are the biggest threat against getting checklists done. Whether it's looking for other traffic or having some kind of situation on board (e.g. medical emergency in the cabin), it doesn't take much to throw off the routine.

I remember hearing of a pilot who had to go-around and didn't retract his landing gear on climb out. Then, at the point he would lower the gear for the ensuing landing, he selected gear up. That's because he was just mechanically moving the gear handle at the usual point in the approach. He missed the fact that he was moving it up, not down. (This was a GA incident.)

A lot of GA pilots, especially those flying "complex" airplanes (having retractable landing gear and constant speed prop) perform a "GUMP" check on short final:

Gas (proper tank selected?)
Undercarriage (must be a Brit influence)
Mixture (full rich)
Prop (takeoff setting...full forward in case of a go-around)

This is probably redundant if you've performed your written checklist, but it covers some important items to be sure of for landing.

Hey WOXOF, This was with VXE-6 (USN) and we were stationed in Pt. Mugu, Ca from Apr-Sep. The squadron doesn't exist anymore but they have some videos on youtube. I flew before internet!! From CA we flew to Hawaii, Pago Pago (American Samoa) and into Christchurch, Nz. We were based at McMurdo and landed on a ice runway over the Ross Sea until it began to warm up and then moved to Willly Field were we landed on skis.
We have a ski selector switch next to the landing gear handle. Often times we would be stuck on the skis after sitting for some time but you could free yourself by cycling the skis. When you get 3 skis down and locked punch the throttles.

The skis moved in tandem with the landing gear. For instance coming in for approach to the ice; ski selector up, gear handle down = gear and skis come down then skis go up. We were stationed at McMurdo or Willy Field ( named after PO Williams who fell through the ice on some sort of heavy equipment vehicle) from about Oct 15 - Mar 31. Our Squadron also had UH - 1 helicopters.

pilot refuses full body scan...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/roberts-m1.1.1.html

Thank you for that link. I'm sending it to every pilot I know.

I sometimes visit www.pprune.org and this kind of thing is frequently a hot topic. The authorities seem to have a blindspot in realizing that a pilot doesn't need to carry knives/guns/explosive on board. He already has the perfect weapon at his fingertips when he's flying the damn plane.

Haha chiglet, that's actually a great point.

Alright, with respect to the TSA incident, I have to play devil's advocate.

W0X0F, I know you have made clear on multiple occasions that you consider TSA to be a farce in many instances. And I agree the organization is very much reactionary, and not so much forward thinking. That being said, it's difficult to argue that through all the mis-guided policies, silly shoe inspections, liquids in plastic baggies, and miscellaneous other policies, that the TSA has somehow managed to prevent another major terrorist incident.

Maybe it's out of luck, but when you consider that in 9 years, 1 month, and 8 days, not one serious incident has occurred in the U.S., that has to be worth something.

I'm all for civil liberties, but I also believe that air travel is a convenience, not an absolute right. Thus, I believe that those who make there living off of air travel, should have to choose whether they are willing to give up a little bit of personal freedom.

I understand the argument that if an airline pilot wanted to commit a suicide terrorist act, they wouldn't need a gun, knife, bomb, as they are at the controls. But I think the FedEx 705 incident teaches us that just because a pilot has flown several hundred/thousand flights to date, doesn't ensure they are eternally stable. We have a phrase in our lexicon, 'going postal', which unfortunately is well understood by most Americans. If a pilot ever decided to "go postal", instead of shooting the five co-workers closest to his cubical, he could try and take down a 757 with 190 passengers into a populated area. In a real situation, it would be a fair fight between the unstable pilot and the stable one. If the unstable on had a gun/knife/weapon, it would quickly become an unfair fight. And with the cockpit locked as per modern policy, there would be no outside intervention.

I agree that TSA follows a philosophy whereby you throw a bunch of policies up against the wall and see what sticks; but Americans' collective resistance to reactionary policies only underscores the resistance likely towards forward-thinking policies. It may be an imperfect, and perhaps crappy way to create policy, but in our society, it's about as effective as policies can get.

I think that you and your peers are the men and women the flying public look up to most. Even in this day and age of budget travel for all, we all always take a peak at the guys with the gold stripes and hats. You are still a source of calm when flying, and still a target of awe in the airport.

No matter how much disdain you may have for TSA and their inefficiency, and no matter how much you and your representatives may choose to influence policy behind the scenes, your collective willingness to tow the line of acquiescence in public is a critical step in encouraging the public to put safety ahead of expedience. As bad as TSA might be, I reiterate....9 years, 1 month, 8 days. That pretty damn good!

They might be checking to make sure he's not smuggling drugs or something.

Anyway, to OP, other than the 757, which modern Boeing/Airbus airliner has the highest thrust to weight ratio? All else being equal, I like to fly when the G forces on takeoff are most immense.

I'm not going to get into a fight with you about it, but if you really think that the TSA's policy of security theater has prevented anything other than people enjoying air travel, then I can only laugh at you.

Tony, I wouldn't want to argue with you, because I agree totally that TSA has made travel a less enjoyable experience. I'm lucky in that most of my travel originates from PIT, where security is generally a breeze. However I often travel to MCO (Orlando) where TSA is a disaster. I further would concede that many TSA policies are worthless. Let's face it, the best way to get by with some liquid explosive would be to have a baby in tow, and take advantage of the more liberal rules for baby formula. In many ways the policies are largely ineffective.

The only thing I would ask you to consider is this: the extensive list of oddball policies is so lengthy that it makes it really hard to get past security with something dangerous.

Because this great thread is the product of a committed commercial pilot providing us with comprehensive answers to all sorts of questions, my only point was that whether through silly policies, dumb luck, or smart planning, TSA has miraculously managed to prevent another serous incident. Given this, I feel that pilots, who still are the most well respected men and women in commercial aviation, can keep their own well founded problems with TSA regulations to themselves (or express them through inside channels), and instead publicly accept TSA policies. By doing so, regular fliers are more likely to go along with these rules, which, by sheer scope, make it more difficult for potential terrorists to get through the cracks.

I was recently reading an old thread on a now defunct message board that described a bunch of old stories. None of these 'seat of the pants' anecdotes, like planed stopping 50 feet after push back to drop the air stairs for a non-rev to board, would be allowed today. And every little bit, no matter how trivial, somehow manages to contribute to a reduced risk of serious incident.

Sometimes the sum of a bunch of silly policies serves to actually have some positive influence towards safer air travel.

You are right....most of these rules are silly....but I truly believe that a collection of silly rules have combined to provide a marginal increase in overall safety.

-TSAs policies have killed far more people than died on 9/11, simply by getting more people to drive instead of fly.

-Another 9/11 style terrorist attack isn't possible because a) passengers and crew now know that planes can be used in suicide attacks, and are more likely to resist armed terrorists and b) locks on cockpit doors.

-If you think the ridiculous screening measures prevent anyone from bringing dangerous chemicals aboard, you are completely delusional.

You have got to be the first person I've EVER heard defend TSA, who didn't work for TSA.

So really, what you're saying is dumb luck has so far prevented another 9/11? I'm not sure that's a great basis to go forward on.

Incidentally, as a non-American, some of the stories you hear put me off visiting the place again in a hurry (the staff at DTW were pedantic and unwelcoming when I passed through and that was a dozen years ago - the rest of Michigan was as hospitable and welcoming as you could ever hope for though).

This is a level - right?

In the past nine years we are lucky that we have only been getting stupid terrorists, but that is about it. The TSA has done nothing but spend money on pizza box advertising.

Perhaps we can get back to the "Ask a question, get a great answer from OP" format?

I don't really know where to begin, and I certainly don't want this thread to focus on issues of this kind. I'm interested in airplanes and flying. The TSA and security issues are a thorn in my side and make my job a lot less fun than it once was. Having said that Still, I comply with all required security screening and I never give any grief to the individual TSA workers who are, after all, just doing the job they are trained to do. Hate the game, not the player. I understand that this is the world we now live in. (And I also realize that, being in uniform, I set somewhat of an example to other travelers. Your point on this is well taken.)

Your point about stopping a pilot who has weapons (and thus making the fight with his fellow pilot an unfair match in the hypothetical "going postal incident") is fine. But when I have a pair of cuticle scissors confiscated as I did in Norfolk, or fingernail clippers, as I did in Jackson, MS, I have to wonder about it. Seems like eyewash to me. What is being served by these actions? I sometimes have the urge to shout "The emperor has no clothes!" (BTW, as a consequence of these confiscations, my manicure, which was once above reproach, has suffered enormously. )

As I think I have pointed out before, the big difference between security screening here and elsewhere in the world is that we focus on "things" (shoes, liquids, etc) rather than people. It's political correctness gone mad when my 79 year old mother is constantly subjected to secondary screening when she travels (non-revs seem to get selected for this far in excess of any random selection).

There's a benefit/cost consideration here that I think is way out of control, and there's also a point of diminishing returns (how much additional security for what added increment of safety?). I know there are those who would say "no cost is too great", but can we really sustain that approach?

I live with it because I have to, but I honestly don't get any great feeling of security from the process I observe. It's just the music we must all dance to now. That being said However, I realize that removing all security screening would be madness.

BTW, the threat level at every airport in the U.S. has been Orange for as long as I can remember. Does anyone think this color coding makes any sense? When they announce it over the airport P.A. several times a day, does anyone stop and think, "Wow, Orange. I better be on my toes today." Will it ever be Green, or even Yellow, again. Of course not.

And what, exactly, does "Orange" mean to anyone? There are no guidelines for what, if anything, we should do differently. It seems to be there just to put casual travelers on edge (or maybe the theory is that they will feel safer: "That's right, we're at Orange. Nothing's getting by us today".)

Or is the intended audience the would-be terrorist: "You heard us, m-f'er: Level Orange. We're looking at you! And we could step it up to Red in a heartbeat, so back off!"

[/Rant]


Yes, I agree. This might be a worthwhile topic of discussion and I would encourage anyone who wants to pursue it to create a new thread.

I still owe some posters answers to aviation questions and I'll try to get caught up today.

I live in California. I reliably get secondary screened on every single interstate flight. Sometimes I get secondary screened on intrastate flights. I show up 2 hours early because I know I'm getting secondary screened. I'm pretty sure I'm profiled because my name sounds middle Eastern and Google image search with just my last name confirms that the first page shows lots of pictures of Muslims and some of them look pretty pissed off. I really don't buy that there is no profiling going on. I also don't mind getting secondary screening as often as I do.

That said, Memphis TSA really are miserable people. Hate that place.

Kind of reminds me of Brian Regan's comedy bit: "You know who I really feel sorry for? Arab-Americans who genuinely want to be crop dusters."

Been there and I concur. One of the worst for being rude and throwing their authority around.