No difference on the approach or even the actual touchdown. After touchdown, the pilot will continue to increase back pressure on the wheel to hold the nosewheel off while the speed bleeds off. There's really not much need for braking, but since the mains are still there, it wouldn't hurt to assist in getting it stopped. Reverse thrust would just be for style points; it wouldn't affect the stopping distance by much, if any.

Does flying ever cause motion-sickness?

Absolutely none. You're essentially a test pilot for this one. I think we can assume that the stopping action of the friction of the plane's belly on the runway will exceed the stopping action of the friction of wheel brakes plus reverse thrust. A wet or snow-covered runway might make this a false assumption.

appreciate thread OP thnx.

question-

is it possible to smoke during flight and get away with it ^^?

tips and tricks plzzz

Not that I know of. We have plenty of flight attendants who are heavy smokers (they can't wait to light one up while we're waiting on our hotel van), so if there was any way to smoke without detection during the flight, they would have found it.

Good you've enjoyed India! and I was sorry to hear you are back to reserve. Sounded weird (though you've mentioned it as an option). If you are becomming more senior, I presumed that there can't be so many people moving into the category to push one 'backwards'.

While on reserve, are you allowed to bid on open trips, or do you have to wait until you are scheduled for an unassigned trip?

(I presume you still prefer flying over collecting the payment without a single trip)

How long before flying on reserve do you have to arrive to the airport? (to be more specific- do you have to commute and wait, or are you given a few hour notice that you have to arrive?)

It's not just people moving into the category, though that alone was responsible for me moving from about 310 out of 480 back to about 385 out of 480 in my category. The other big reason for my lack of holding a line is that much of our international flying has moved to other equipment (A330, B747 and B767/400).

You can put in a preference (e.g. for Las Vegas or for a report time after 10 am) and they'll honor it if they can. But unless there's a whole bunch of trips to be covered, they'll just assign each one to the next available reserve pilot as it comes up.

Hmmm, I'll have to give that one some thought....

It's been years since I've been on Reserve and I remember that it can be a pretty bad deal if they're short staffed. But right now we're pretty fat on reserve pilots, with many more than we actually need on any given day. That's a result of the reduction in flying for this category as some trips were moved to other categories. There's a decent chance I won't even get called for my six days of reserve (which started yesterday).

Reserve rules vary from company to company. It all depends on what the pilot group was able to negotiate as part of their contract (aka "working agreement"). For normal reserve, they have to give me at least 12 hours' notice to report for a flight. This is the minimum and they often give much more than that. I can comfortably sit at home in D.C. and get to New York in time for an assignment (worst case: I drive up).

Six times a month, they can assign me to Short Call, which means I have to be able to report "in a timely manner," which is usually interpreted to mean about two hours. It's not a hard and fast time, because we have to cover three airports (LGA, JFK and EWR) and the local commute times can make this difficult. If I am assigned to Short Call, I'll have to actually go to New York to be available and that means I may need to look into getting a crash pad again. I'm really hoping they keep my Short Call assignments to a minimum.

Ouch! http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...runway-364263/

Do you have any clue on why PHX (Sky Harbor) doesn't usually fly any wide body jets out of there? I know you said for flights over 5 hours to fly them, and when looking to hawaii they just fly 757s. Its not just to hawaii either, it seems they just dont fly them

I don't know if this is true or not, but the allocation of airplane types is strictly a marketing move by the companies involved. If there are no wide bodies operating out of PHX, it would have to be because the markets and loads don't support it, or that those resources are better used out of other airports.

Ah, understood. I would just think with a metropolitan area growing as fast as phoenix they would have it, maybe thats why they just started non-stop flights to LHR, which they do fly the 747 ive noticed.

That reminded me of a question I meant to ask. About a year ago I picked up my friend at the airport and we were talking about the bright red dress one of the flight attendants was wearing. She told him that the dresses were new and very controversial because they only came in sizes small, medium and large. When he asked why that was controversial she whispered that "heavyset" flight attendants were not happy because they felt they were being signaled out as "fat". Could this be true, or was he pulling my leg?

It could be true that the sizes are limited, but I don't know if this was a conscious move to keep the +++ sizes from wearing them. I've heard the term RDQ used by crew members. This means "Red Dress Qualified" and it's pretty commonly accepted that the red dress doesn't look good on everyone.

Just an awesome thread, took me over a week to read and would have been longer except I am homebound after ankle surgery. Not sure if you have had DFW beer offers but the next one is on me, unless someone with more seniority already offered hehe.

One question and one anecdote.

Could they design planes with fewer but larger windows, or would that not be feasible? I hate getting a "window" seat and finding that I really can't look out unless I crank my neck 130 degrees backwards. Not sure fewer larger windows would allow for better views as each company decides how many rows of seats to install, but it seems like it might work.

So in 1993 my mom passed away and my brother and I had her cremated. She had told us she wanted her ashes spread at sea (which we had done with our dad), and my brother said he would handle it. 2002 my brother passes so I have to spread his ashes. I go to the local municipal airport and talk to a learn-to-fly company and they tell me they have never had such a request but agree to take me about 10 miles offshore to spread his ashes. Very neat riding in a cessna, listening on the headphones to the pilot talking to the contol towers, and I was amazed how much smoother the flight got as soon as we got over the ocean.

A week later I am clearing out my brothers storage unit and find my moms ashes...he never got around to spreading them! So I take them and go back to the flying company and told them I needed to go back up. I was worried they thought that I was a serial killer/cremator lol.

seeing that you are on the reserve I don't know if you get much Euro flying anymore (I guess this has to be bid for a lot), but if you are ever in Munich, please do send me a pm and I will buy you a big Paulaner.

What is done with the planes after gear-up or no nose-wheel landings? Does this "total" the craft?

If not, can they be patched up to ferry for repairs?

I think you're the first DFW offer and I might get down that way some time. I have relatives in Ft. Worth and Arlington.


The only good windows on the airplane are in the front office. I think making the windows larger in back might compromise the structural integrity of the fuselage, but that's just a guess. I'm sure it's feasible, but might require thicker gauge metal and that means more weight (and less payload). I know there's some bizjets that advertise larger windows and they've decided that's a selling point worth whatever extra beefing up is necessary for the fuselage.

Good story. I think if someone came to me twice in a short period to "dispose of the evidence," I might have to make a phone call.

Being on reserve means I might go anywhere at any time. I doubt I'll see a Munich trip, however, since we don't fly there out of JFK (it's strictly ATL afaik). Too bad...I hear great things about that place.

I've known several instances of light aircraft landing gear up with minimal damage. I would assume it's the same for larger planes. Wing mounted engines will add to the damage, but the major damage will be to the belly of the plane. The repairs would be expensive, but I don't think they'd have to total the airframe.

The question of ferrying it is an interesting one. If it could be patched up enough for ferry, it would probably have to be flown unpressurized (i.e. below 10000') until the integrity of the pressure vessel could be confirmed.

The nosegear up landing is much less damaging, since the damage would probably be limited to the bottom of the nose (and the gear doors).

So I've been reading up on an emergency declaration at JFK in '10.
Lots of people have rather strong opinions about it. Questions about whether or not the emergency was justified. Whether or not it was clearly stated. Whether or not the pilot should have been in a situation where he couldn't have waited for a different approach. The attitude of the controller has been called into question. Lot's of things to ponder. I'm guessing you're familiar with the incident. Care to add any thoughts?

My bigger issue, though, is that it seems like this sort of drama happens quite a bit at JFK. Not necessarily pilots declaring emergencies, but just a lot of tension due to the amount of traffic in the region. I've read seemingly countless threads on various forums about disagreements between controllers and pilots there. I recall one very long thread at PPRUN about an English chap who thought they were trying to kill him. From what I gather, ATC in that area seems to operate under their own set of rules, and when combined with your typical NY curtness and lots of trans-Atlantic flights keen to get on the ground in a big hurry, it just doesn't seem like a real friendly environment. Thoughts?

I remember hearing the audio on this (someone posted it earlier itt) and my reaction was that the American pilot on the radio was a complete jackass. I just googled this and found the audio again (here) and listened to it and it just reaffirms my initial reaction.

Here's a summary:

• AA2 is cleared to land on Runway 22L. Tower calls the winds "320 at 23 gusting to 35."

• AA2 quite correctly states that they will be unable to land on 22L but then inexplicably states "we're going to break off the approach and if you don't give us 31R we're going to declare an emergency."

I find this statement to be really strange. It's fine to say you can't accept a certain runway, but to then couch it in such a thinly veiled threat is unprofessional to say the least. The need for another runway certainly doesn't rise to the level of an emergency, unless there was something that American is not stating (e.g. emergency fuel state or an engine on fire).

• Tower tries to get AA2 to fly runway heading, which is consistent with standard procedure and safety. It kind of throws a wrench in the works to have planes just turning to whatever heading they decide on their own.

• AA2 now declares an emergency and advises that they are going to fly left traffic for 31R. Any pilot can declare an emergency at any time and do whatever they want in the interest of the safety of their flight. The catch is that they must then be able to defend this action at a later date (i.e. emergency action really was required).

• Tower seems to miss the emergency declaration and attempts to have AA2 continue runway heading for vectors, but then asks "you say you're declaring an emergency?"

• AA2 responds that they have declared an emergency "three times" though I can only find the one time they actually declared it (the first time they simply threatened to do it, but didn't actually declare).

• ATC clears the airspace, sending at least one other flight around. After AA2 lands, they are issued taxi instructions with no further discussion of the "emergency."

Usually when an emergency is declared, ATC will ask some questions, foremost among those: "Do you require assistance after landing?" None of the typical questions were asked of an emergency aircraft (they like to know number of souls on board and fuel remaining).

I'd love to know what happened afterwards. Did the pilots have to answer to anyone about this? It seems to be a flagrant abuse of emergency authority, unless there is something else to the story that isn't apparent from this audio. In my opinion, the controller acted properly and professionally throughout this situation. Can't say the same for the pilot.

I've always found the New York controllers to be excellent in both their professionalism and their ability to smoothly move traffic. I don't find it tense or filled with drama. I'm not trying to be a defender of NY ATC, but I honestly don't agree with any of the things you allude to. What one person calls curtness, another might call a professional economy of words. I've never observed any special set of rules in NY airspace and the point about trans-Atlantic flights being in a hurry to land is an exaggeration (we carry plenty of fuel for diversion and contingencies).

The red dresses worn by some Delta Flight Attendants are designed by Richard Tyler (supposedly famous). They were not designed for "plus size" FAs, but when the merger occured, this was in violation of the Northwest Contract. It created quite a stink. Story here.

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner has addressed (somewhat) the window issue for those of us who do not get to sit in the "front office".

You can see an example here.

Were you able to fly somewhere nice since you are 'on call' this month?
(I presume it may at least give a chance to fly to 'more senior' destinations, since someone have called sick, got stuck, etc.)

And thank you for the explanation on the AA2 incident again.

There was a fuel issue after a prolonged hold which led to it being more than just an assignment refusal. As for what happened, according to the folks on PPRUNE, report was filed, accepted, and life went on for all.


I'm a big fan of economy of words (despite being surprisingly long-winded myself). Given what I understand to be the complicated nature of ATC in that region, I wouldn't fault them in the slightest for seeming curt. I've watched airspace tracks for that region, and that they do what they do astonishes me. I'm just saying that I've seen plenty of pilots expressing frustration about dealing with it.

To be fair, a lot of it has been on PPRUNE, and those guys do seem to be a little high strung. Particularly the US vs. UK rivalry. You seem to be a mild-mannered fellow and pragmatic enough to understand that it's just the way things work up there.


Out of curiosity, something I kind of gathered from this thread is that an emergency due to fuel is pretty avoidable. In this situation, wouldn't their first mistake have been not diverting before they got into this situation?

I wasn't aware of any of that, but I was hoping there was more to it than just what we heard in that audio clip. I'm not familiar with PPRUNE at all, but I Googled it and I see that it's the Professional Pilots Rumour Network (PPRuNe). I assume from the spelling of "rumour" that it's a British site. I'll have to bookmark this one...looks like good stuff.

Sounds like me.


It always should be avoidable, but sometimes we get led down the primrose path by circumstances. Diverting is not a move that is made lightly because it carries a big price tag (missed connections for passengers and sometimes a huge operational impact if the delay causes the crew to "time out", i.e. reach their duty time limit).

I've had occasions where we are holding due to weather at our destination (this could be thunderstorms closing the airport or it might be very low visibility which is limiting the arrival rate) and we come up with a minimum fuel we are willing to accept before diverting. Just as we are closing in on the number, ATC clears us to continue to the airport. Now we are operating on the thin margin of what we want to have (not yet dangerous or an emergency, but our options are becoming more limited if we encounter further delays). Now, if something else happens, e.g. an accident which closes the runway or yet another turn in the weather, we find that we need priority handling by ATC.