There was Helios Airways Flight 522 crash that was due the pressurisation system being set to manual instead of auto, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522. This was featured in an episode of Air Crash Investigation (Mayday). Scary stuff that hypoxia, very sneaky...

What would it take to control the plane on the ground after landing on autoland and to bring it to a halt? I mean just touching down isnt enough.

As I recall, one of the flight attendants was the last man standing during the Helios mishap. Their military escort saw him trying to pull something out, to no avail. A day or two later, one of the European rags featured a full page diagram "how to land a 737" (in twelve easy steps, no doubt). The consensus on one of the other pilot forums was that while their info was spot on, nobody would pull it off in a million years.

Not sure which forum it was, PPRUNE seems a good guess, but it became a hot topic for a couple of months; Could A Dummy Land an Airplane. What sold me on the futility was when one of the pilots, a 737 man I believe, said that he wouldn't put a whole lot of faith in his ability to land a 747 due to unfamiliarity, despite his solid stick and rudder skills. I believe he said there would be plenty of survivors, but the aircraft wouldn't be one of them.

Would you agree with that? How would you fair landing a 747, or an Airbus? Would it be the size that's a problem, or general unfamiliarity? Would you stand a better chance in a 737?

I can't believe that I never heard of this crash. I just can't imagine this happening, given the warnings that the crew received. Incredible.

Actually, it is. The 757 and 767 will track the centerline, using the localizer signal, and also apply autobraking which will bring the plane to a stop on the runway. Some of our 757s (acquired in the merger with Northwest) do not have autobrakes, so in these it would be necessary to apply brakes by pressing on the tops of the rudder pedals after landing. It's important to apply the brakes evenly to track straight ahead.

I've ridden in the jumpseat of many types of aircraft that I have never flown myself and I believe I could land any of them, especially if I had a knowledgeable "coach" on the radio. A 747 would probably be one of the easier ones since it's a Boeing. The Airbus types would present some minor problems due to my lack of familiarity with the flight control logic.

Big fan W0X0F, thanks for your contributions.

I wanted to say that I specifically remember Payne Stewarts jet having a military escort as it was flying into the countryside. I can only assume it was there first to ID the problem and then to take action if the jet became a threat to people on the ground.

Either way, it was a sad day for anyone that was a golf fan.

Going back to the TOCWS situation. Is there one for landing, i.e. the gear is not down? I see a wide variation of when this is done. I know you have said before it's usually at 1000' AGL, but I have seen it well before landing and "shortly" before landing.

There is a warning for this, but it's part of the GPWS (Ground Proximity Warning System) not TOCWS (TakeOff Configuration Warning System).

The GPWS warnings are audible voice warnings and cover the following situations:

Excessive descent rate ("SINK RATE" "PULL UP")
Excessive terrain closure rate ("TERRAIN" "PULL UP")
Altitude loss after take off or with a high power setting ("DON'T SINK")
Unsafe terrain clearance ("TOO LOW – TERRAIN" "TOO LOW – GEAR" "TOO LOW – FLAPS")
Excessive deviation below glideslope ("GLIDESLOPE")
Excessively steep bank angle ("BANK ANGLE")
Windshear protection ("WINDSHEAR")

For the first two listed above, there are two distinct warnings with separate trip points in the GPWS logic depending on proximity to the ground and estimated time to impact. When things get really critical, that's when the "PULL UP" aural is triggered. I've never heard this except when testing the system or in contrived situations in the simulator.

The landing gear should always be down no later than 1000', and that's pretty late. Most of the time it will be down by the time we're five miles out, which equates to about 1500' agl. Occasionally you'll hear it come down quite a bit earlier and that's if the crew has to use the drag of the landing gear to help get the plane slowed. I've had it happen where Approach Control has kept us high and fast for too long, so that when we're finally cleared for the approach we need to use the landing gear as a speed brake (and it's very effective for this).

Are these airline mergers used to rid the industry of pilots with lots of seniority? I have somoe experience with this being done in the railroad industry. Absolutely, when they talk about "economies of scale" acheived by a merger, they pretty much mean that they will be getting rid of senior (expensive) pilots.

Did you see this?

http://wftc.membercenter.worldnow.co...aptain-retires

No, I hadn't seen this. Thanks for the link. I wish I had gotten the opportunity to fly with him. Never missed a day of work. Incredible!

Just wanted to say that I really appreciate the thread and if Delta isn't paying you yet for your great contribution to the Airline-Passenger relationship building, they better start soon. This thread already has its own following on FlyerTalk and your audience, without a doubt, is growing quickly.

I also saw you mention the JFK-SVO route a few times. Thats actually where my two offices are based, although I spend a good time in Prague(shame that DL210/1 became seasonal. I really don't enjoy flying on KLM or AF). I typically fly TATL about once a month on DL30 or DL210(when they come back in May). Having a knowledgeable person, like yourself, in the left seat is certainly reassuring. Keep up the great work and thank you for taking the time for this thread.

Is there a reason for which side the big black distance marker numbers on the runway are on? The runway headings, which numbers go first on the payment, i.e. 18R-35L or 35L-18R? Is it numerical or is it which direction you are going? Hope that makes sense? I noticed the other day that a pilot's chart bag he was carrying was really old and noticed a trend as I looked around. Is there a superstition among pilots with your bags and not to switch them out when they begin to get old?

When I read your question, I had to stop and think about those markers and I seem to recall seeing them on either side of the runway and often on both sides. So I went and checked the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM)* and found the following:
*[The AIM used to be called the Airman's Information Manual but was renamed about ten years ago (maybe more) in the name of political correctness.]

I assume you're talking about the signs you see by the taxiways and runways that list both runways on them. These are posted at points where you would cross a runway and the numbers on the sign are oriented appropriately with respect to the ends of the runway you're about to cross. Here's a pic from the AIM (p 2-3-14) which shows what I'm talking about. As you can see, when you're heading west, the numbers appear as "31-13", but heading east they appear as "13-31".



Yes, most pilots develop a sentimental attachment to their flight bag. Many guys have adorned their flight bags with stickers to both express themselves and also make their bag easier to pick out among the hundreds in the crew room (all black, of course). Mine had a "More Cowbell" bumper sticker on one side, plus a couple of others. I say "had" because we stopped carrying individual flight bags over a year ago. The main purpose of those bags was to carry Jepp charts and company manuals. We now have all that stuff in "ship sets", i.e. flight bags that remain on each plane and are updated by the company. I don't miss carrying the extra bag on trips, but it was kind of a sad day to put that bag on the shelf for good.

Here's one side of my bag:

Haha love the sticker.

That whole water cannon thing must be super satisfying and emotional after a long career - most people will never get to experience something like that. Is there a rule as to who gets that treatment? Certain number of years of service? Who sets that up? Does a buddy have to call the airport and get the right people in place or does the company arrange it?

If there are any rules governing this tribute, I'm unaware of them. Maybe it takes a call from the company's chief pilot to the airport fire station; I doubt it can just be a buddy of the pilot. I don't even know if there's a charge for it, but I don't think so. After all, it's just the fire department shooting their water cannons...something they probably need to practice from time to time anyway.

In all my years of flying, I've only been present for about three or four of these events. It is a pretty cool thing to see.

I know you can't comment on security, but I thought of you when I read this...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/c...RR9UVGzfypjnLO

This could be just a disgruntled former employee, but I tend to believe most of what he says.

What are your thoughts on the "long-haul" RJ routes. There was a story in the WSJ recently that said United has a 4 hour SFO to AUS flight. That just doens't seem right.

Is it just Delta rules that force the hard stop at 65, or is it FAA mandated?

Pretty shortsighted to force such experience to leave, then be concerned about a pilot shortage. If he was capable today, he's capable next Wednesday.

Interesting read and nothing surprising here.

I've always been against it. The RJ was meant to replace turboprops for the short haul flights (an hour and half or less) and serve as a feeder to the mainline flights at the larger hub airports. That paradigm has changed over the last decade and passengers are now forced to endure very long flights in a plane that starts to get very uncomfortable after about 90 minutes.

By law, U.S. airline pilots cannot cannot fly after their 65th birthday. Up until about five years ago, the age limit was 60 years old and there was a lot of debate and controversy over the change. I think part of the impetus for the change was the impending pilot shortage, but this change just delayed the impact of that shortage by five years.

I was in favor of the change because my retirement was eliminated in the wake of 9/11 and I really need to keep working.

I gotta say i've been following this thread for quite some time, and it's absolutely fascinating especially for an aviation junkie. I had to create a profile just so I can say thank you for keeping this thread going W0X0F, your answers have really been enlightening. I always make it a point now to compliment pilots on a nice landing now, and always get a smile and a thank you
A question I have though is why does the MD-88 seem to always have such a hard landing? I fly LGA to MIA on Delta often and that landing always seems like the plane was slammed on the runway. Whereas whenever I fly JFK to LAX or SFO it's not the same on the 757. Is it just me having bad landings on those flights or is the MD-88 known for that?

Also what's your take on this vid. Would you say that kind of weather is a bit severe for a take off or is that the norm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9IhQxmt08U

Can't believe I get to post in this epic thread!!

This morning in Otawa, a 737-800 had to make an emergency landing after the cabin filled with smoke... Link

It turned out to be glycol from the de-icing... Suspected to have gotten in thru an APU vent... Wondering if you have any idea how this might happen? I assume the pilots turn off the APU once the engines are running. Did someone forget to shut a vent?

Great thread by the way!

As an add on to the above post, I was once on a plane in Detroit getting de-iced a few years ago when the plain suddenly lost power. The captain mentioned something similar to the above poster, that the de-icing agent got in somewhere it wasn't, shorting something or other. We remained on the plain for a good 2-3 hours while tech's did their job, and of course, we needed to be de-iced again.

Amazingly, the exact same thing happened again - power going off on and all. After the second one we had to go back to the gate and our flight ended up being delayed until the morning as it was already 4 hours past the original departure time.

Would something like that all be human error?

Having flown both the MD-88 and the 757, it's my opinion that the MD-88 is much more challenging to land well. I think the main reason is the type of flight controls the plane has. On the 757/767, the flight controls are hydraulically actuated whereas on the MD-88 all movements are made via mechanical linkages (cables and pushrods). Also, on the MD-88, you actually move control tabs which then move the flight control surface using aerodynamic force. When flying the MD-88, it feels like you have to really overcome inertia in the flight controls and make constant inputs. Watching a pilot land an MD-88, you'll feel like he works much harder than his counterpart in the 757. He's constantly making small (and sometimes large) inputs to both the control yoke and the throttles.

But...there are still guys who have so much time in the 88 that they routinely get very nice landings. So while it's a tougher plane to land well, I think you've just had a bad run. If I look back on my time in that plane, I'd say my landings broke down like this:

• great landings 10%
• acceptable landings 75%
• bad landings 10%
• landings where I dreaded having to actually look the passengers in the eye when I said goodby 5%

Really hard to tell from that video. It all depends on the winds (and any report of windshear) at the time of takeoff. If the wind is fairly steady state and it's blowing down the runway, there's really no problem. Forty knots of steady wind right on the nose is easy; 40 knot of gusty crosswind is reason to refuse takeoff clearance.

It's true that we normally turn off the APU after the engines are running, but we also sometimes shut down the engines for de-icing, in which case the APU must be running to provide electrical power to the plane. In this case, it is the de-ice crews' responsibility to ensure that no glycol enters the APU air intake which is located on the rear fuselage of the plane (specific location varies from type to type). Humans make mistakes sometimes and it wouldn't be hard to send an errant stream of glycol in the APU intake. I'd be surprised if it took until the takeoff roll for this error to manifest itself. The APU would have been off for takeoff and there's no reason that applying power to the engines would cause any glycol in the APU system to then enter the cabin.

The whole story sounds a little sketchy and it seems more likely to me that the glycol fumes entered the cabin via the engine inlets and thence via bleed air from the compressors. But there's really no telling from the story in your link and I always take anything I read in the press with a grain of salt anyway.

I can tell you that our de-ice procedures tell us to run the engines for at least a minute after de-icing before turning on the air conditioning packs. The reason for this is to burn off residual glycol and reduce the chance that the odor is noticeable in the cabin. The smell always remind me of maple syrup (mmm...pancakes!).