I think you're right about that. The selection process for a professional pilot is probably a little more rigorous than the process for teachers and it's pretty obvious from the beginning if someone can't cut it.

I also found the bidding process interesting. If you could be guaranteed you would receive whatever you bid 100%, what you pick the same schedule every month? Which routes would you fly the most? I'm guessing you would fly the 12 day trips?

In this line, do you get what is similar to a 'get out of jail free pass' for a single major mistake, such as making a take-off without flaps (well maybe not that major), if you had otherwise a completely clean record? Or is it more like the military where everything minor, major, anything else is included in your file and a mistake may follow you for life and will certainly impede your career?

I don't think I'd pick the same schedule every month; I like variety. I'd probably go back to flying international flights exclusively, however, and that's just because the lifestyle suits me: trips that are commutable on both ends; one leg each way; good block time for a three day trip (resulting in lots of days off...18 or 19 days each month); nice layovers. I'd try one of those far east trips for sure, but I don't think I'd like a steady diet of 12 or 13 day trips.


Losing your job is kind of tough in this industry. The things that will cost you your job include failing a drug or alcohol test, sexual harassment, and willful negligence and disregard for safety. If you make a big goof like takeoff with the wrong flap setting (which has happened), you'll get a trip to the schoolhouse for some re-training and there will be a record in your personnel folder in case you become a repeat offender. But this incident won't affect your career path*, unlike in the military, because of the seniority system. No one is filling out performance reports on you for use before a promotion board.

[*There are some rare exceptions I've heard of at United, where some pilots have been determined to be "career FO's," i.e. the decision was made that they won't be allowed to upgrade. I don't know this for a fact, but I've heard it from several sources.]

I read through a lot of this and saw a lot of questions on turbulence and still have a few questions about some that I went though.

The worst was a take off in las vegas and for some reason 20 seconds into take off the plane had horrible turbulence. It was violent and the plane was dropping like crazy for at least 60-90 seconds. I assume this had to do with wind and air temps but it was very bad.

But what scares me the most in landing in Cleveland in the winter time. I dont get scared but I know when we are on approach and circling downtown and keep going over Lake Erie at hard turns and hit turbulence at the same time, its quite scary. Is this dangerous? Making hard turns, in the winter? And does it matter that its turning over the lake and land?

If it's any consolation, the main things that I know of that affect lift (outside of airspeed) are temperature, altitude and humidity. Hot, dry and high all contribute to less lift for each knot of airspeed (all other things being equal, which they aren't). I would think that landing in Cleveland in winter would produce a lot of lift given that it's cold, not too dry and not at a high altitude. Not that lift is the only thing to be concerned about but there's nothing dangerous about turning an airplane provided sufficient airspeed is maintained. Going through different airmasses like over lake/land will be uncomfortable but it won't matter for safety.

Also, regarding Las Vegas, Vegas is well-known for being a high wind location. Given that w0x0f flies in and out of Vegas all the time I'm sure he's dealt with some nasty winds. They might make the flight seem scary but there are well-established limits for winds. Keep in mind that planes by definition deal with 500+ mph "winds" all day long. They are built for it. Of course they can't maneuver through certain crosswinds and takeoffs/landings into uneven winds can produce turbulence but outside of severe windshear (which can be extremely dangerous given that planes can lose a lot of lift very quickly) there's no real issue with it.

You can read more about the impact of windshear on aircraft here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_sh...enger_aircraft. Summary: very unlikely to affect you.

I have done a lot of flights into and out of Vegas...and especially during the hot summer with the thermals, I have encountered a ton of turbulent encounters that have elicited reactions from the passengers on approach, landing and takeoff. I always hate going to the airport when it is super windy in town. Maybe just in my mind, but it always seems to be going to and from Los Angeles. It seems there is always one point as the plane is approaching LV from LA that turbulence hits and I wonder why they don't change this particular path that always flys between two mountain peaks it seems. I always try to prepare friends that happen to fly with me to LV (who are not regular fliers) that there is a good chance at turbulence but not to worry. One time I had talked a friend who was scared to death to fly, to give it a try instead of making the god-awful drive to Las Vegas. On the LAX Tarmac just prior to taking off, the pilot comes on and says due to weather right in front of us over the water, he expected quite a rough take-off and wanted us and the FAs to be prepared and/or not surprised. I have never seen a human being turn as white as my friend, and I could see he was physically trembling. He told me he would get off the plane in a second if he could. The plane took off without even a bump

One of the worst turbulent encounters I had was actually from LV, but into Kennedy. It was the day after the airport had been completely closed due to high wind conditions in the 60MPH range. After the plane touched down at Kennedy the pilots got a big clap. I can still remember the passengers heads bobbing up and down through the long approach and landing.

If you really want turbulence, take a lot of flights into Reno.

as long as we're doing w0x's job, i should point out that dry air provides *more* lift, all else being equal.

and as long as i'm speculating as an amateur, the main thing i'm hypothetically worried about in the above scenario is the possibility of icing over the water.

Ah you're right, I reversed that one. I knew that too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxTAjVGN4CE

"Honey, the flight controls are unresponsive, stay calm and read the emergency response list."

Cool airplane! I love the Diamond Katana. Great visibility and a control stick instead of a wheel. The maneuver itself is a little dangerous, especially when you consider the ultimate result.

Pretty clever video and I'm sure they'll be showing it at the reception (and maybe the conception).

If this occurred 20 seconds after takeoff and the plane was "dropping like crazy for at least 60-90 seconds" you should have hit the ground. I'm guessing you went through a couple of minutes of moderate turbulence which is not terribly unusual out of Las Vegas. It's possible that it was worse; we had a period earlier this summer where the wind patterns were creating some extreme windshear conditions and we even had some Las Vegas bound planes divert to Phoenix because of it.

The normal prevailing winds are out of the southwest there and the mountains break up the airflow, often causing some turbulence which disappears as you climb above it. Stronger winds will result in more significant turbulence


Cleveland in the winter is no picnic, but they do have the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame so you've got that going for you.

I've been to Cleveland many, many times and I really can't even relate to what you're writing. We don't "circle" downtown coming in and if they're landing on runway 5L or R, we don't even see downtown. Also, I don't remember going over Lake Erie at all, but then we were coming in from the east. I can't speak for all the arrival patterns.

I'm also at a loss about the "hard turns." This implies to me that the pilot was either using a larger than normal bank angle or was rolling into the bank at a faster than normal rate. The only time I would ever be doing this would be in response to the controller saying "Flight 103, turn left immediately!" (and, btw, this has never happened to me). So I'm left to wonder what airline you were flying. I remember when I flew at ACA we'd occasionally get a young pilot who really liked to yank and bank the plane. I'd have to school this guy on the fact that passengers don't like that and what they want is a "coffee cup" ride.

But to answer your questions: "hard" turns are not inherently dangerous, no matter what time of year they are done. And whether the maneuver is accomplished over land or water is irrelevant also.

What we're really talking about here is air density. If the air is dense (more molecules per unit volume), it produces more lift. This is why, on a hot summer day, many airports will include a phrase in their ATIS advising pilots to check density altitude. ("Density altitude" is an adjusted altitude, taking into account the temperature and humidity, used for calculating aircraft performance, e.g. takeoff and landing roll required.)

I have to correct you on this one, and it's a common mistake.

Hot air is less dense than cool air. TRUE
High elevation has less dense air than low elevation. TRUE
Dry air is less dense than humid air. FALSE

It might seem that dry air would be less dense, after all water is heavy right? But actually humid air is less dense. That's because you have a molecule of gaseous water displacing a molecule of air. A water molecule (H2O) has a molecular weight of 18. Air is mostly oxygen and nitrogen, with molecular weights of 32 and 28, respectively. So humid air is lighter than dry air.

Coming from the East landing in CLE we always circled out over the suburbs but coming from the west we circle around downtown and land from the East of Hopkins. It really follows the path of the freeway 71 South. Maybe we dont circle over Lake Erie but it sure seems like it.

This link shows the path:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/S...030Z/KLAS/KCLE

It's not so much that they're "high" winds, it's really that the terrain breaks up the airflow and often produces low level turbulence. The latest Las Vegas weather (as I write this) is:

KLAS 011156Z 20008KT 10SM CLR 23/M01 A3002 RMK AO2 SLP139 T02331011 10278 20228 53004

which translates to:

Las Vegas weather on October 1 at 1156Z, winds 200° at 8 knots, visibility 10 miles, sky clear, temperate 23°C, dew point -1°C, altimeter 30.02

(The remainder of the METAR is some obscure data, of no interest to anyone I know. "SLP139" means that sea level pressure is 1013.9 millibars. Someone once told me what the other numbers mean, but I quickly freed up those brain cells for stuff that matters to me.)

As you can see, the winds are only 8 knots. With those winds, it's probably a nice smooth ride in the Las Vegas area.

(btw, for anyone interested, I got this weather observation from this site, which will give you the METAR for any airport.)

Well...not really. I know what you mean here. What you're saying is that, since we are going through the air at 500+ mph, we are experiencing relative wind of this magnitude. But here is where the difference between indicated airspeed and true airspeed comes in.

We never see a reading of 500 on our airspeed indicator. The plane would probably come apart in such a wind; it's way beyond Vmo. When we're at cruise altitude, we probably have an indicated airspeed of around 270 kts (referred to as 270 KIAS). But the air is much less dense at this high altitude, so we are actually traveling through the air mass at a much faster speed and that speed -- the TRUE airspeed, aka TAS -- can be calculated. In fact, the airplane does that calculation for us and we have a readout of TAS right on the forward panel. So we might be at 270 KIAS with a TAS of 450 kts (which is about 518 mph). Now you add in the effect of the headwind or tailwind and you get groundspeed, the actual speed over the ground.

True airspeed is never really referred to. Controllers don't care about it; if they ask for our speed, they want indicated airspeed (and, at cruise altitude, they want Mach number).

By "uneven" winds, I'm guessing that you mean winds that are not steady, i.e. gusting. And when you say we "can't maneuver through certain crosswinds," this only applies to takeoffs and landings, for which we have maximum crosswind components (and a max tailwind component of 10 knots). A crosswind during flight is irrelevant except for the effect it has on ground track. It does nothing to make the mechanics of flying more difficult.

Looks like you're coming in from the west, which probably explains it. I was always coming in from the east (IAD-CLE)

Thanks for all of the explanations! I'm going to Vegas on Saturday, hoping for a sweet crosswind landing.

FYI: On Discovery Channel right now, there is a show called "Plane Crash" where they deliberately crash a 727 to see what they can learn about crash safety. Pretty interesting so far and should be cool when they show it.

I hadn't heard about this, but found plenty of information on the internet (I Googled: Discovery channel "plane crash"). This link has a decent video in it and the basic information.

Some high points:

• cost ~$900k
• the experiment was conducted last May in Mexico (maybe the FAA wouldn't approve this in the U.S.??)
• two pilots on board until 4000', at which point they bailed through the aft airstair exit
• remotely controlled to impact by a chase plane

The plane just flew into the ground in a controlled descent, kind of like it was coming in for a landing, but the nose was low and it hit first. This video didn't say what the descent rate was, but it looked to be in the 1000-1500 fpm range (just a swag). If this accident happened in real life, it would probably be categorized as CFIT: Controlled Flight Into Terrain.

Interesting yes. But it only provides information about one specific kind of impact (nose low, wings level, controlled descent). Get that wing a little low and the impact will be much different.

What do you think about this?

http://www.economist.com/news/scienc...lectric-motors

Sounds a little "pie in the sky" to me, but I'd love to see a demonstration.

You said somewhere in this thread that you know (of) some pilots on commercial airlines you wouldn't let anyone close to you fly with. Would you mind elaborating on what was wrong on this pilots? How big percentage of all pilots you know would this group of black sheep form?

PS. I flew with Delta for the first time ever a couple of times back. My $400 Samsonite that I've flown with about 30 times with no issues came back missing not only a wheel but with an actual hole at the bottom with the cushions coming out. It looked like someone had hit it with a sledge hammer. All I got was a $50 voucher when any European airline I've flown with would've paid for it in full. Yes, kinda my own fault for not having insurance I guess. Regardless, I'm not very satisfied

In all my flying, there has been only one pilot who I really felt this strongly about. The main issue with him was not his ability to fly, but his lack of judgment and his inability to deal with problems. At least twice that I was aware of, he was saved by a competent First Officer after he got things so screwed up he was ready to just give up.

Along the way, I've also come in contact with some pilots who are just plain sub-par, but not so bad that they can't pass a check ride and do the job. I just kind of wonder how they would do if things start really going bad. The percentage of pilots I've met that would fall in this category is much less than 1%. But luckily we fly as a crew and this provides a solid backup even for a pilot having an off day.

You should be outraged, and I am just hearing about this. And you shouldn't have to have insurance to guard against such abuse of your possessions. There was a famous case of a guitar damaged by United Airlines. The owner, a musician named Dave Carroll, wrote a song about it that went viral on the internet: United Breaks Guitars.

What happens to this guy?

Does the FO provide a full briefing when they return, or are there seniority issues with things like that?

Does he go back to 'retraining' the first time, then more serious consequences later? (Moved to FO duties, terminated?)

What did the captain do on those occations?

This remids me of the captain of Crossair flight 3597 that crashed on approach to Zurich. The captain descended below the minimum descent altitude even though they didnt have the runway in sight, and they hit a hill top. Wikipedia has this to say about the captain's previous incidents:

"The report revealed that the pilot had failed to perform correct navigation and landing procedures on previous occasions, but no action had been taken by the airline to remove him from transporting passengers. A series of accidents and incidents during Lutz's career as a training captain with Crossair, including multiple failures to upgrade his flight certifications to higher-complexity aircraft such as the MD80 due to insufficient comprehension of computerized navigational systems and causing the total loss of a Crossair Saab 340 by retracting its landing gear while it was still on the tarmac, led to Crossair relieving him of his training captain duties in 1991. However, Crossair continued to allow Lutz to fly passengers, despite repeated demonstrations of his overall piloting deficiencies. These included a near-miss incident on final approach to Lugano Airport where Lutz came within 300 feet (91 m) of colliding with the shore of a lake during his final descent and a navigational error during a sightseeing tour over the Alps that took the flight far off its course to Sion, Switzerland. In this particular incident, Lutz missed his approach into Sion, Switzerland and circled over what he thought was Sion's airport for several minutes before passengers spotted road signs in Italian; the navigation error had taken them over the St. Bernhard Pass through the Alps, and the airport they had been circling was in fact located near Aosta, Italy."

Scary stuff. But im sure clearly incompetent people are a very small percentage of pilots. As you said, the question is what happens to those who can barely perform in normal situations if theres an emergency or the workload otherwise becomes very high.