A friend just landed in Australia, and they said they have to unload the bags first before letting the passengers out to prevent the plane from tipping over. Was an LA bound flight so I assume this was a huge aircraft. Wat?

Not often, but I've occasionally heard it, especially when things are approaching gridlock (this can happen when there's a ground stop and no one is departing, but planes are still arriving). In this situation, everyone starts to get so frustrated that they look for ways to expedite things. It's always good to keep in mind that the controller has the big picture.

Offhand, I can't remember ever doing this, but I could see how it can happen. Windshear is certainly cause for a go around but, if you have plenty of fuel, there's no reason not to give it another try because windshear conditions can change in just a few minutes and be dramatically different from one runway to another. After their second attempt, they probably decided that their fuel state was too low to mess around any more before diverting or it may be they decided there was no reason to think things would be better on a third attempt.

I think I've departed from 7L maybe three or four times, always from taxiway A8. It's a good runway for departure when heading to New York because no turn is required; we're already heading east.

I know it's possible to send messages to a plane's ACARS from the ground, because I used to do it from my desk when I was Chief Pilot at ACA. Of course, this is merely text and in no way affects the flying of the plane.

To think that someone could actually tamper with the FMS is a little scary. However, this is not the same as gaining control of the airplane through the autopilot. The FMS has the route of flight and planned altitudes at fixes on the flight plan. If someone remotely changed the route, the plane would actually follow the new route. It's conceivable that this change could escape notice by the pilots for a little while. But at some point, one of them will pick up the flight plan printout to see how things are going (i.e. are we on time over the next fix? Are we burning more fuel than planned?) and they'll see that the fixes don't agree with the plan.

As for flying the plane into the ground: impossible. Although there are altitudes associated with fixes in the FMS, the plane doesn't descend until the pilot actually selects the new altitude on the mode control panel (MCP).

So, there's nothing dramatic that would happen that would terrorize passengers, but it would definitely be a major pain if we have to constantly guard against the flight plan being modified.

If this was LA to Australia, it had to be a heavy aircraft...probably a Boeing 777 or 747, or an Airbus 340 or 380. The situation you mention is very unusual but I can think of a possible scenario that might cause this. If the forward cargo compartments were deferred (i.e. not available for use), then all cargo would have to be loaded aft. In an empty plane, putting all the cargo in the aft end could create such an out of balance CG that the airplane would tip backwards. (If the CG is much aft of the main gear you could have this problem). So, they probably didn't load the cargo until after the people were on, and then at the destination they had to remove cargo before letting people off. This way, the CG was kept within limits.

So why would a forward cargo compartment be deferred? I've seen it a few times over the years and it's usually because of problems with the smoke detection and/or fire suppression systems in those compartments. The plane's MEL (Minimum Equipment List) allows for these systems to be deferred for some number of days (three days for a Category B deferral; 10 days for a Category C) so that the plane can continue to fly and the company can plan for the required maintenance at a time and place to minimize the impact on the operation. The MEL will list the limitations imposed by the deferral and, in the case of no fire fighting capability, that will mean that no cargo is carried in those compartments.

[Note: I can't be sure this is the reason for what your friend saw, but it's one possibility.]

What happened was the FAA changed the definition of "heavy" from aircraft 255k pounds or greater to 300k pounds or greater to meet with ICAO standards. Source

So it's really Europe's fault. You can also blame them for "Line up and wait."

I've occasionally seen firefighters doing a drill, but you've picked a topic I know nothing about.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/geekq...004313530.html



Have you noticed an increasing amount of turbulence during your career?

No, I haven't.

I read the article you cited and I cringed at parts of it. I'll address some quotes from the article:

Turbulence comes in many varieties. Down low (below cloud level) on a hot summer day, you'll definitely get turbulence from updrafts and downdrafts (ugh! pockets of air? I hate that term!) due to uneven heating of the earth's surface. Any GA pilot is aware of this effect. Just flying over an area of green pasture and transitioning over an area of freshly tilled (dark) earth and you'll get some bumps. But this effect all but disappears once you reach an altitude above the clouds.

(BTW, he contradicts himself later in the article when he describes turbulence as an effect of the jet stream rather than his so-called pockets of rising and falling air.)

Yes, we can see clouds, but turbulence has never been limited to clouds and storms. Turbulence can occur any time and that's why we always keep our seat belts fastened. Also, we don't use the term CAT to apply to just any bumps we experience when not flying in clouds; CAT usually implies a more serious kind of turbulence, at least moderate. (The grammar nit in me cringes at "tell-tail"; it's "tell-tale.")

The United flight received warnings of severe turbulence and turned on the seat belt sign. Shortly thereafter, they encountered the turbulence. I don't know the details of how the injuries were sustained or if the passengers involved actually had their seat belts on.

The BOAC accident had nothing to do with CAT. The plane was flying fairly low (around 16,000) downwind of Mt. Fuji. Winds at the peak of Fuji (which tops 10,000') were reported in the 60-70 mph range, so the turbulence they encountered was almost definitely caused by this. There is also no way to know what other contributing causes may have been involved.

Up to this point in the article, my reaction to it was that this is a typical piece of yellow journalism designed to alarm the public. The next two paragraphs seem like the only solid part of this piece:

The first paragraph is a pretty good description of turbulence at the upper flight levels. The predictions in the second paragraph may or may not be valid; I don't know.

So Lion Air in Indonesia crashed missing the runaway in clear weather in a Boeing 737-800 Next Generation, no dead. They are banned from flying into EU and I heard that its common practice for them to employ pilots with no salary in exchange for them getting valuable flying hours in that airline. Does this practice exist among carriers allowed in the USA EU? Does this look to you like an accident caused by a rookie pilot?

thx for this thread btw

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3075945.html

Lion Air, along with all but four of Indonesia's airlines, is still on the European Union airline blacklist

I guess I will make a point of avoiding all Indonesia's airlines

There's no way I could comment on what caused this accident. The only information I have is the Huffington Post article and that really doesn't say much.

As for using inexperienced pilots and paying them nothing in exchange for experience, there was at least one case of this in the U.S. that I know of. A commuter airline in Florida was "hiring" pilots seeking multi-engine experience, who would pay $1000 to be First Officers. I know this because one of their Captains was a guy who had been furloughed from ACA when I was there. I don't what, if any, minimum requirements that airline had for the guys they hired and I don't know if it's still going on.

There's a helicopter operator based out of Florida that basically does the same thing. You pay for 100 hours of "training" (which could be done in 5) and then they hire you for an additional 200 hours. Net result is you lose money on the deal but you log 300 hours.

There are also operators who will take your money to let you ferry a helicopter that needs to be moved anyway across the country. You can get a lot of cheap cross country time this way.

Both of these practices are highly controversial.

Thanks for the awesome thread, I've registered just to follow it, and finally gotten through the entire thread! :-)
Now for a question that I can probably help with, since I'm actually a glider pilot. Caveat is that I fly in Norway, so rules may be a little different elsewhere. though probably not much.

(subject about the space shuttle):
I seriously doubt that. You can only log it as glider time if the aircraft if certified as a glider. And I highly doubt the space shuttle is certified as a glider, despite it popularily being refered to as the world's most expensive glider

Since I own a glider with a little stowable engine I can answer this! It depends on how the aircraft is certified again. If it's certified as a glider, then all flying time is logged as glider time. There are separate columns in a glider pilot log book to note how much of the time was under engine (as well as how much time was during aerotow if it's being towed).

There is a separate aircraft certification for what is known as a touring motor glider (TMG). And this is where it gets a little complicated, as it doesn't have to be certified as a touring motor glider even if it has an engine - usually those certified as TMG are those that look more like regular planes, with a propeller in the nose, and just longer wings (e.g. like this), while those that look like regular gliders with a retractable engine on the back are usually certified as gliders (e.g. like this, which is same model I own).
Touring Motor Gliders can be flown either on a glider license, or a regular PPL (or some other airplane license), and depending on which license you have, you have to log it as either glider time or airplane time. And if you have both you can choose to log the entire flight as either glider or airplane.

Hope this dive into glider regulations didn't become too boring


I'm a little curious; there are several glider pilots I know who are also airline pilots, and they will often say that jets is what they do for work, gliders is what they do for fun :-) But how do airline pilots (like you) who don't fly gliders view them? Is it common to enjoy all forms of avaition if you're an airline pilot, or is "lesser forms" of flying looked down upon? I'm aware you can't answer for everyone, but maybe you've gotten a feeling from talking to other pilots? Is private flying a common talking subject in the airline cockpit?

I've always been curious as to why airplane technology has yet to reach a point where the effects of turbulence would become unnoticeable to passengers?

Physics?

That's all very interesting. Thanks for the information!


I can't speak for others, but I've had some limited glider experience from my days living in Hawaii, and I definitely have an interest in all forms of aviation. I would love to get my helicopter rating but it's expensive and doesn't really make any sense for me. I would also love to own an ultralight.

Private flying is not a common subject in the cockpit, but I have flown with a few guys who are into it and we can spend hours talking about GA flying.

It's for the same reason that driving a car over a road full of potholes is still noticeable to passengers in spite of automobile technology.

Could turbulence cause a plane crash?

I'm sure this has been answered before but I am curious as well. Never done well with turbulence.

I withdraw my question as I found Post #164 link

This thread is way too big to search if question was already asked.
So sorry if asked already and if so: link please.
Question: 9/11 conspiracy theorists often claim that the flight manouvers of the planes, especially, the one hitting the pentagon, were impossible or only possible for very experienced pilots. Whats your take on that and was it highly discussed in the pilots community?

So if this thread is so large to search, do you think it would be a big money-maker if someone developed a way to search the entire internet?

The alternative explanations put forth by conspiracy theorists (and "theorists" is way too lofty a word for these nuts) are ridiculous. There was nothing remotely difficult, let alone impossible, about the flight maneuvers. I don't recall even one discussion with other pilots regarding the maneuvering of the planes. All of our conversations centered on what we would do to handle such a situation in the future.

[And, btw, no thread is "too big to search." I simply typed "conspiracy" into the "Search this thread" box and got 29 posts returned. Go read those and you'll get an idea of where I stand on this stuff.]

To my embarrassment I missed the search this thread button
tried to search with the ordinary search function and couldn't find "search thread".
So thank you for still answering !

Was just interested if there is a real controversy going on between pilots or if those dudes listed here are just the exception.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html.

Lol thank you. I deserve it.