Let's say that I want to basically get to your position right now and money is not an issue. What is the basic route to your position if you can afford flight time easily. I assume having a bit of money makes the path to your position a bit more enjoyable?

I agree. But we all know that the casual reader will miss the words "total compensation" (or else not even discern any significance in those words) and infer that the number given ($205k in the article mentioned) is the amount on that person's W-2 at the end of the year.

IOW, it achieves a visceral impact. Readers see that number and think "Wow, those guys are paid a lot! I only make [X] dollars a year." And the [X] they're thinking of is their salary (or yearly income based on their hourly wage); it's certainly not their "total compensation." No one I've ever met discusses their income in these terms.

[/attention span]

Let's get back to the mysteries and wonder of flight. The people really do look like ants from up here.

about the pitot tubes being blocked there was the tragical Aeroperu crash :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroper%C3%BA_Flight_603

(saw it on mayday)

Popular Mechanics story about AF447

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRR20QI1MNg

Milford Sound landing today. Also, I passed my commercial flight test last week. By the end of the year I should be captaining flights in and out of this strip.

Nice video. Beautiful scenery there!

For anyone who watches this, you can hear the occasional sound of the stall warning during the approach (it's kind of quiet on the video and has about the same squeaky pitch as a baby doll saying "mama"). It's not unusual to hear this in gusty conditions in a light airplane because you're down to approach speed and the gusts cause momentary airspeed fluctuations, sometimes activating the stall warning.

You can it hear again right as they bleed off airspeed to make the touchdown. This is normal for any landing in a light Cessna and it's a good thing because you should be landing close to a stall.

sledge,

congrats on the commercial ticket! and nice landing in gusty conditions on what looks to be a reasonably challenging field -- a touch and go on 2500' of strip is not a trivial accomplishment.

Very sad chain of events. I wonder if the Captain came to the cockpit earlier would he be able to recover from the stall or at least direct the pilot on what needs to be done.

On a lighter but also serious note, how often does this happen? and do you turn around and land or continue to your destination?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD9cibXhCWI

"Robert tries to take back the controls, and pushes forward on the stick, but the plane is in "dual input" mode, and so the system averages his inputs with those of Bonin, who continues to pull back. The nose remains high."

Can anyone explain why would it ever be good to have dual input?

The pilots are suppose to be communicating continuously about what they're trying to do so it should be very rare for extreme differences in input. In which case, averaging the inputs seems like the right thing to do (as opposed to just picking one or neither of them).

Thanks. It's quite a tricky strip to land at, 1800' and with some very turbulent drafts on final and over the runway. We use 70 knots, 10 degrees flaps and aim well beyond the threshold in those conditions, so you end up floating a third of the runway before touchdown as well.

It's just unbelivable that a supposedly professional crew in one of the largest carriers can just show no sign of any CRM whatsoever, and just let a small, basically insignificant, event turn into such a disaster.

Yes, very nice video. It made me google touch and go landing though as I was wondering why anyone would need to do one in practice.

I read the wikipedia article about it and it mentiones a debate about its use even when teaching a student.

So I guess I can assume that there is no situation on a commercial flight where you would ever need to touch and go? Or have you done one?

W0X0F, what is your take on that Air France article? Could it ever happen to you? When reading that article i was shaking my head in disbelief... how could the pilots be so amateuristic?

I guess its stress... I know that when I am under pressure, like 1 minute left to complete 4 multiple choice questions on an exam, my brain stops. I cannot procede. I guess that's an expalantion.

At my local airport, Ryanair aircraft are often to be seen "bashing the circuit" with their 738s and until the airport changed its policy regarding traing flights, Virgin Atlantic were regular vistors with their A340s.

I'll leave it to W0X0F to explain why touch & goes are still necessary for commercial pilots.

There was an A400M from Australia doing go-arounds at Queenstown a few months back, not even touch and goes. Lots of value in practicing the approach and go-around phase (I think they were trying to save money on landing fees as well).

If you're in a tailwheel aircraft touch and goes are less valuable, but I've never heard anyone suggest that they were no good for tricycle aircraft.

I believe touch and goes are stock stuff for when doing type conversions and probably for maintaining currency when someone is short of a few take-offs and landings but W0X0F will be able to clue us all in much better.

Interesting video. The pilot of this plane really over-rotated. You can see the nose come up way too fast. We shoot for about 2-2.5° per second. Much faster than that risks a tail strike. The 757-300 is really vulnerable to this because of the extended fuselage. (It looks to me like this guy rotated somewhere in the 5-10°/second range).

This is an extremely rare event. I can count on one hand the number of tail strike events I've heard of in the last ten years. Of course, they don't always notify me of everything that happens out there.

I've never had a tail strike myself, but if I did I think it would merit a return to the airport. Who knows the extent of the damage? I wouldn't want to climb and create a high pressure differential until the airframe has been inspected. Planes have been flown on their route after a tail strike without any bad result, but in some cases the crew wasn't even aware it had happened and the damage was minimal...just some scraping. (I think the crew in this video had to know they had hit.)

Your assumption is correct. We are not trained to do touch and goes and it is not an authorized maneuver. First of all, there is no need for them in normal operations and, secondly, we have no performance data for them. The only time it could conceivably occur in a passenger carrying commercial flight is if the Captain exercised his emergency authority and did it in the interest of safety; i.e. the alternative (completing the landing and rollout) would put the plane in immediate peril.

Here's one scenario: the plane touches down and a 747 ahead doesn't hold short as instructed and begins to taxi across the runway 2000 feet ahead of the landing plane (this is called a "runway incursion" in the biz). Your choice: collide with the 747 or take off again. The Captain can throw the rulebook out the window in an emergency. The only catch is he has to be able to justify it later.

There was a day when touch and goes were used by airlines, but only for training. This was before the advent of modern Level D simulators, which can be used for all the training necessary for a type rating. Before these sims were around, much of the training took place in the airplane (including simulated engine-out emergencies in which the instructor would pull one engine to idle thrust).

I remember seeing TWA fly a B-747 around the pattern at Dulles Airport in the 70's. Back in those days Dulles was a virtual ghost town...perfect for doing some practice "bounces." After touching down, they'd set the flaps and trim for takeoff and apply the power, then pull up to an incredibly high deck angle (lots of extra power on an empty 747) and bring it back around.

Tough and goes are used routinely in light airplane training for the simple reason that it is an efficient way to get more landings per hour. With the cost of a C-172 in the $125/hour range, it gets expensive to land and taxi back for each landing. Aircraft performance is not as much of an issue with light airplanes as the runway is often long enough to land and come to a complete stop before applying power for another takeoff. "Taking it on the roll" (i.e. applying power right after touching down) can be done safely and is very attractive when you're stroking those checks for the rental time.

I sometimes go to the airport to remain current in light aircraft and I've done my required three takeoffs and landings in as little as 0.3 hours (as measured on the Hobbs meter in the plane). If I taxied back for each of these landings, it would probably be twice that.

That's interesting that they're using touch and goes in their training. I don't know of any commercial airline in the U.S. doing this maneuver in jets.

When I was at ACA, we used to do touch and goes in the turboprops as the last step in training for new hires. We called these hops "15% rides" (I think because it represented the last 15% of their flight training, after they completed sim training). I was a flight instructor for ACA and I'd take as many as three guys out for three landings each. We'd take a plane out around 11 pm (after it was finished producing revenue for the day) and go to either Martinsburg, WV or Charlottesville, VA. After one guy's 3rd landing, we'd make a full stop landing and taxi back where we'd have the guys switch seats.

Ryanair book maybe 3 to 4 days per month when one aircraft may spend as much as 4 to 6 hours bashing the circuit. Up to a few years ago, Virgin Atlantic would also spend the occasional day doing circuits as part of their type rating process with A340-200s but the airport changed its policy on hosting training flights and VA had to make other arrangements. Occasionally, DHL Air will do a few circuits with their 757s, 767s and A300s (all freighters) so you can see they're not insignificant aircraft. Maybe the regulations are different between the UK and USA.

This has set me thinking. Accepted wisdom is that it's more difficult to fly an airliner than a single-engine bug smasher - a C172 pilot wouldn't be able to instantly take the controls of a 747 etc. However, is the reverse actually true? Might a commercial airline pilot such as yourself struggle just as much to get used to the "seat-of-the-pants" flying required for a light aircraft if they've not taken the controls of one for an appreciable time? I know sims are very good nowadays but do you get the same feeling of wind buffet or ground effect as in a real airplane?

This is a really cool 747 repaint vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu3OExKfFR8

14 day process. Any idea how often they have to do that assuming they don't need to switch it from another company?

^^ that is a LOT of sanding.

Any thoughts on the head of FAA getting a DUI and then not reporting it?

Is the penalty for a DUI loss of license? Extreme but I understand the perception issue. If you can't drive safe on ground, then you can't fly in the air.