Absolutely. The ability to safely fly on one engine is a requirement for certification of any Part 25 airplane (aka transport category airplane). In fact, if the event occurred right at V1 (sometimes called "decision speed"), the pilot is supposed to continue with the takeoff roll and get the plane airborne. The idea here is that the plane is capable of flight but there may not be enough runway left to safely bring the plane to a stop on the ground.

If you are a frequent flyer, you will eventually encounter a situation where a plane is "weight limited", i.e. they are leaving some seats empty because they can't carry everyone. Many people get concerned in this situation, thinking the plane is near to its maximum lifting capacity. But the calculation (and the weight limitation) is predicated on the plane's single engine performance. With both engines operating normally, there is no problem filling the seats. But we operate in a world of "what if?" and we plan accordingly.

Looking at the video, you can see the pilot applied reverse thrust within two seconds (you can see the reversers blossom from the engine nacelles).

Yes, jj, you are a cynic and that's probably why I sense a kinship with you.

Although the move seems obvious, there are a lot of CEOs and other high level execs who would never consider inconveniencing themselves for the great unwashed masses.

I've heard other stories (stories that don't get publicized) about Andersen's interaction with "commoners" and he seems to be a genuinely nice guy. He once sat at DCA waiting for a flight with a group of employees trying to commute to work on a bad weather day. I talked to some of those people shortly afterwards and they were all impressed with his down-to-earth nature.

(Of course, this won't sway a true cynic. )

Those sway me a lot more because they're not things that would ever be made into a public story (plus bigger sample size and all).

Hey w0f0x, great thread! Im flying to europe this Friday an someone asked me to bring a pack of omega 3 (oil pills). Do you think I could have potential problems if I put them in my suitcase?

Thanks!

If you mean your checked bag, then it shouldn't be a problem. But if you are talking about your carry-on bag, then I don't know. The TSA is nothing if not inconsistent.

You might get a better answer at FlyerTalk.com, which is a web site of frequent flyers who exchange information. I'm sure they have many threads about the TSA.

How common is this? Also, do mechanics have to have some type of license to taxi aircraft?

http://www.nycaviation.com/2013/07/a.../#.UdQhVPnFXbO

The NTSB and/or the FAA probably keep stats on this kind of thing, but it really doesn't happen very often. For a mechanic to taxi an airplane, he must complete a company training program specifically for this purpose, so not every mechanic is allowed to do this.

what's was the closest you got to getting hijacked?

Have you seen United 93 (the movie)? It's a film about the day of 9/11 from the perspectives of the FAA, people on board United 93 which is the one that crashed in the field, the pilots, military commanders, the terrorists themselves etc. It's not overly dramatic and it doesn't have any name actors, it has a very realistic feel to it. If you have, how realistic did you as an industry professional think it was? If you haven't I think you'd probably appreciate it more than virtually any movie involving planes.

The only thing about the movie that seemed out of place to me was that they showed that in the cockpit the pilots had a some kind of message board about the size of an ipad where they received text messages. For example their board read something like "two planes crashed at WTC, beware for cockpit intrusions" or something. They still had normal radio communication etc and it was never explained why this "message board" would be needed. Does it really exist and what do you use it for?

Hey, not sure if you saw this question but I was wondering if you have ever landed a plan at Kai Tak, Hong Kong the old airport? Any stories from any pilots for this airport?

w0x,

ever caught yourself succumbing to a psychological effect like this one?

https://twitter.com/sbaker/status/35...494208/photo/1

I never have and I've got no stories from anyone who's been there. Sorry.

No, I haven't seen it and maybe I should. I'm always a little hesitant to watch TV docudramas because it's obvious going in that license must be taken to present the story (i.e. dialog will be created and the suspense/drama of the situation will be handled for maximum TV effect).

We have ACARS on board, which has the capability for plain text communication with our dispatcher or maintenance people. But the messages don't just come across without action by us. We'll get a chime or alert on the ACARS box that we have a message waiting and then we have to navigate around the ACARS menu to retrieve it. And from what I heard from pilots flying on 9/11, they did not receive information on the attacks while airborne. For some inexplicable reason most crews were kept in the dark about what was going on and they were directed to land without knowing why.

The link you sent shows the descent profile for the Asiana flight that crashed at SFO. I'm not sure what psychological effect you're referring to.

In light of the revelation that the pilot of the 777 that crashed at SFO had less than 50 hours of actual flight time.

What is the minimum # of actual flight hours required to receive a rating in a particular multi-engine aircraft and who regulates it? The FAA? The airline? the IP?

Some news reports were ambiguous in how they reported this and left the impression that you have repeated here. He had less than 50 hours of flight time in the 777; he was actually a very experienced pilot:

NY Times report:

Every pilot must get his first hours in a new type and those hours are accumulated during revenue flights (i.e. carrying passengers). When a pilot transitions to a new type, or when he upgrades from First Officer to Captain, he goes through a training program which includes ground school (systems knowledge), simulator training (normal procedures as well as abnormal and emergency situations) and ending with IOE (Initial Operating Experience) which consists of revenue flights with an instructor pilot/check airman riding along in the other seat. IOE will generally be about 20 hours of flight experience for domestic pilots and somewhat more for international pilots.

So...we don't have a "beginner" in the left seat as some news reports have implied. But the thing that really gets me about this new revelation is that the guy flying with him is the IOE check airman and his role is to put the polish on the training curriculum, i.e. to transition this guy from classroom/simulator to the real world. He should be hyper-vigilant and I am really mystified as to how they could have gotten so low and slow. Maybe he didn't notice that the flying pilot had the power back at idle, which results in a delay if you really need additional power quickly (we always keep the engines spooled up during an approach).

It almost seems like there had to be a distraction during this critical phase. I'm really interested in hearing what's on the cockpit voice recorder.

Sorry, in the 777 should have been at the end of my statement but it was cut off for some reason.

How different are the operational and performance characteristics of different large aircraft? I'm sure there is a larger learning curve between a FBW Airbus and a mechanical Boeing, but is there that much of a difference between say a 747 and a 777 or a 757 / 767?

I've never flown the 747 or the 777, but I would expect to be able to transition to either one without a problem. If you've got a thousand of hours of experience in heavy aircraft, moving to a new type should be almost trivial. A great deal of the training is learning system and automation differences.

do you have any comment/thoughts on the reports that people grabbed a bunch of stuff on the way out of the plane? I would presume it's okay to grab what's under your chair but not open a bin? Or are you supposed to leave everything?

In light of the Asiana crash at SFO, is there anything unique about landing there from a pilot's perspective? Have you ever landed on that particular runway at SFO?

Here's another article: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...,6484387.story

"Barr said that the powerful engines on big jetliners can take up to 10 seconds to go from idle to full thrust."

10 seconds??? That's an eternity! Is that right?

Is this pilots career over in aviation? Where do pilots who have lost a plane and/or passengers end up?

faa-advises-asiana-airlines-pilot-to-get-back-out-there

Care to expand? In the same breath here you say that many us pilots have on desire to work for these airlines, then that your friend got rich working for one.

W0X0F,

Based on some of the news reports I've read, it seems like Asiana is eager to blame the accident on pilot error rather than a mechanical failure or anything else, almost to the point where I wonder: for liability/damages purposes, is it better for the airline if the accident was due to pilot error rather than something else (mechanical, bad weather, controller error, etc)? Do pilots carry something comparable to malpractice insurance plans used by doctors?

BTW, this is an incredible thread, and thank you for continuing to provide thoughtful and informative responses.