Do you blackout from JFK to LAX

Hello W0X0F,
I got addicted to this thread, actually spent all day at work reading it. By the way I am a System Admin and live in NYC and always wanted to become an airline pilot but things worked out differently. To make things more interesting I live right under the approach path to JFK's runway 4L, 4R, I live in the tall buildings on the beach, you can see them when you make a right turn coming in from the Atlantic Ocean on final approach.

So anyway, my question is: Lets say you take off fully loaded obviously exceeding your landing weight, all of the sudden you face an emergency situation which requires you to land without having the time to dump fuel. Can you actually land exceeding your landing weight? If so, what kind of damage can happen to the plane? I am assuming a frame check would be required after a landing like that.

I really couldn't comment. I've never flown (as a crew member) into LAX. Runway incursions are a hot topic with the FAA and we actually brief hot spots on the airport where this is likely to occur (due to confusing signage or multiple intersections).

BTW, just to make sure we're talking about the same thing. A runway incursion is when a plane taxis onto or across an active runway without clearance (creating a risk of collision with landing or departing traffic).

1. I see planes about 20 (maybe less, idk) miles away from SFO just standing still in mid air. Maybe the runway is backed up or something? Is this called "stalling"? How slow of a speed can a 767 maintain?

2. Is it standard for pilots take drugs/medication that will keep them awake (like behind the counter stuff I assume).

3. When flying, do u and the FO talk alot about random stuff (non relating to the actual flight)? In a 6 hour flight, would you find the time for 5 hours of casual conversation if you wanted to?

like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cofPH1y9vuw

I appreciate you all giving me this soapbox, but I am reluctant to get into too much of this as much of it is personal opinion and I'm not so arrogant that I think I'm the burning bush on these issues.

A lot of what's wrong with the airline industry these days is also what's wrong with big business in general in the U.S. In the 60s, CEOs used to make about 40 times what the average wage earner made (this is from memory, the number might be different, but I've got the order of magnitude right); now it's up around 500x. Now, no one bats an eye at some executive getting compensated in the 8 and 9 figure range (with bonuses). It's obscene, if you ask me. Madoff is doing time and I think some airline execs should have adjoining cells.

The lay public thinks all pilots make $300,000 per year and there might still be a handful who do (senior heavy body Captains at FedEx might come close), but I'll probably clear about $110 this year. Certainly livable and I love my job, but I was making $90k as a systems engineer 16 years ago (in '93 dollars).

Easy money when things go well, but I put my job on the line twice a year in recurrent training (screw up and you can be gone) and twice a year I take a flight physical to see if I can keep my job. When I flew in to Providence in the MD-88 and had to dodge thunderstorms at night and hold between cells with lightening in all quadrants and constantly make decisions on where we would divert and how long we could hold and then finally get in to PVD, there weren't many people on that plane that night who thought we were overpaid.

See what I mean? You got me going on a rant. I'm going to stop now.

also... in my 3-4 years or w/e on this forum:
this is the best "ask me" thread I have ever read.

I know 20 ppl have said it already, but I just can't go on w/ my life w/o you knowing.

I honestly don't know. My gut feeling is that even if I weren't in the industry I might have a problem with airlines for other nations coming in and operating in the U.S. in direct competition with U.S. companies.

Sure they can operate cheaper and offer lower fares, the same way a sweat shop operator in China can give you tennis shoes cheaper than if they were manufactured in the U.S. The foreign carriers pay their employees less and have fewer benefits.

Do we really all want to get on that bandwagon? I don't know what you do for a living, but consider if it could be outsourced to a another country because they have people who will work for less than you. Sound good?

Great videos!

I was talking about the instantaneous acceleration that happens on touchdown. The tire can't achieve 150 mph in an instant of course, so a long skid mark is left on the runway as it spins up. Look at the landing zone at any airport and you'll see it's black with rubber deposits. It can get bad enough that they have to actually scrape the runway from time to time to remove it.

You're right about takeoff...minimal wear.

The 747-400 is the King of the Air as far as I'm concerned. Excellent plane.

Our longest flights have four man crews who switch off during the flight. But our longest is still short of 20 hours (we do JFK-Tokyo and ATL-Beijing).

The FAA requires a minimum of 3 pilots for flights with block times (gate to gate) exceeding 8 hours. They require 4 pilots for anything exceeding 12 hours. I don't know (and can't seem to find) if there's any requirement higher than this.

That's just part of the deal isn't it? I mean, you get to put your seat back right? May seem a little intrusive if the seats are too closely spaced (and this can vary from one company to the next).

Far be it from me to say I could improve on Sully's performance. As I said before, he is an outstanding representative for airline pilots. I just love the way he's handled himself since this incident.

Thank you. I agree with your sentiment completely.

I learned from OOT that this drives some people ape**** and I was kind of surprised because I had never heard of such a thing.




Great to hear you can still visit the cockpit, too. Definitely doing that on the first trip to Disney if I can.

There are military test pilots and there are civilian test pilots (often, but not always, former military). The Navy test pilots fly at NAS Patuxent River MD (Pax River) and the Air Force guys fly at Edwards AFB (Muroc back in the days of Chuck Yeager).

In the military you get the job by applying and having some pretty impressive flying credentials, including graduating at or near the top of your flight training classes. Not too sure about the civilian side.

I'm sure they're paid well in the civilian world. In the military I don't believe they get any extra pay over their pay grade.

An Airbus 330 did it in August 2001. They have two engines and both failed due to fuel exhaustion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236 I think they made it about 80 miles to land at Lajes in the Atlantic.

I don't know the glide ratio of any of these planes offhand, but they do glide and won't fall out of the sky like a safe contrary to some people's fears.

No, we don't practice this. We tend to stress the "keep the engines running" aspect of training. However, it's not uncommon during simulator training to have some time at the end of the sim period (which lasts 4 hours) and the sim instructor will often ask us, "Anything else you'd like to see or try?" Next time I go to Atlanta, I will ask him to give us a double flame-out at altitude and see how we do with a dead stick landing.

No. Never landed an airliner in the Far East, though I may get to do Tokyo (out of Seattle) soon.

Did you happen to see the documentary on Air Force One? It was during the Bush/Obama transition and it was very interesting. They showed the secret mission into Iraq by Bush and just a whole bunch of the inner workings of what goes on. It also showed how much of a family it is.

They showed the transition from (I believe) F/O to Captain when the presidents change over, and Obama meeting his new AF1 pilot and commenting he looks like he's out of central casting. They showed the changeover from the right seat to the left seat after the last mission, and it just seemed like it would be really interesting for any commercial-size pilot to see.

This example made it the easiest for me to understand

OP Only said it wouldn't take off if airspeed were 0, which makes sense. If you are talking about a conveyor belt going the opposite direction that the plane is trying to take off, it works, because the plane is able to move forward and achieve takeoff speed. Some of the comments on the link are stupid. The friction between the tires of a plane and the ground are obviously not what provides thrust.

Edit: The rollerblade example is a good one.

Yeah, that's about what you could expect. You might get a failure of the wings or tail (and once one of those breaks off, you're cooked). Also, the engines are designed for positive G's and I'm not even sure they would remain running with sustained negative G forces.

It's not all that unusual. Mechanical problems (both as a result of normal wear and a result of design flaws) have been part of aviation since the Wright brothers. Sounds like the system is working here. A problem has been identified and the manufacturer will go back to the drawing board to try to rectify the design flaw, or come up with preventative maintenance procedures. In the meantime, they've stepped up inspections of the part in question.

I'm comfortable with it. It goes on all the time. Airworthiness Directives (ADs) are issued for every type of flying machine out there.

I find nearly everyone has a film they love or hate because it shows their profession/interests accurately or inaccurately? Are there any films you particularly love for their portrayal of flying? Any that are notorious among pilots for their inaccuracy or for spreading misconceptions?

I don't know what the winds were for this landing, but it didn't look like he had the plane's nose pointed down the runway at touchdown (it was off at an angle). Good crosswind technique will have the plane's longitudinal axis pointing straight down the runway. This requires cross controls (opposite rudder and aileron).

Coming down final approach, with normal controls, it will be necessary to have the airplane's nose pointed into the wind. If you didn't do this, the plane would drift downwind of the extended runway centerline. Having the nose pointed in to the wind is fine when you're in the air, but you can't land this way because it puts tremendous side loads on the landing gear. (exception: the Air Force C5, which my brother flew, has main landing gear wheel trucks that can actually be oriented so that even though the plane lands with the nose right or left of centerline, the wheels are oriented so they point down the runway and in the direction of the airplane's movement; this eliminates the side load problem and the airplane actually lands slightly sideways).

To avoid landing in a crab (the term used for having a compensating angle from the centerline), a transition must be made so that the nose points down the runway. But if you simply turn the nose that way, the airplane will again drift downwind and you will still have side loads on the wheels when you touch.

So we use the rudder to bring the nose back to runway alignment and then, to counteract the downwind drift, we increase the aileron into the wind. With a right crosswind, you will have left rudder and right aileron (cross controls). The right wing will actually be slightly down. So a properly executed crosswind landing will touch down first on the upwind main landing gear and then the pilot will ease down the downwind main gear and the nosewheel.

The higher the crosswind, the more cross control is needed and the more noticeable will be the wing down landing. With very long wings, this could ultimately result in a wingtip strike. For that reason, there are limits on how strong the crosswind can be for a given aircraft. In the 767 it's 29 kts. If we're landing on Runway 27 and the wind is out of the North at 30 kts, we're not going to land. We'll go find another place with the runway aligned closer to the wind.

A properly executed landing in a strong crosswind requires good pilot skills and is very satisfying. The irony is that passengers usually think the pilot screwed up because the plane was not level at touchdown.

Nice question.

You know, there probably is. It will get you introduced to the nuts and bolts of aerodynamics and you will probably develop better stick and rudder skills earlier.

I took glider lessons when I lived in Hawaii and thoroughly enjoyed it. Good to get back to basics.