I see that this 'retired UA Training pilot' discussion has made the National News and his name is supposedly Tom Brown. Asiana says no one by that name was employed by them.

Here is one article where this is discussed
Asiana Flight 214: Was the pilot training program to blame?

Without the visual reference points you'd get from the front seat, would he have known that something was amiss? Seems like only seeing out of the side windows would make it difficult to tell whether you're too low or slow.

Unrelated, I noticed something I'd never caught before last night. When flying into DAL we flew right over the top of DFW. The terminal layouts are impossible to miss, but all of the runways were a sea of black; even with planes taking off and landing. I take it that the runway lights are louvered so that they're only visible to a plane within an angle relative to the glideslope. Never considered that before. Is that the case laterally, as well? If you're landing on 18R, can you see the lights all the way across at 17L?

When sitting in either jumpseat, you have a very clear view of at least one of the front seat pilots' instruments. In fact, there's not much to do in the jumpseat other than cross-checking the instruments. I'm really stunned that no one caught such a huge deviation from the reference approach speed.

Yes, the lights are somewhat directional. Hard to see at all when approaching at 90° to the runway, but plainly visible when well off the extended centerline (not sure of any exact figure, but easily visible at 45°). Similarly, they're hard to see from directly overhead, but when coming in to the runway you can be well above the glideslope and still see them.

When on final for one runway of a set of parallel runways (2 to 4 runways), the other runway lights can be seen when you're out several miles but can be harder to see as you get close in (because the angle at which you're viewing the other runway lights is getting large).

Many civilian fields without control towers have pilot controlled lighting. A frequency is published for these airports and you can turn on the runway lights by quick-clicking your microphone on that frequency. Clicking three times will turn them on at low intensity, five times will set medium intensity and seven times will set high intensity. The brightness can be adjusted by simply clicking again. It was always kind of cool to approach a black hole at 2 a.m. and then see it spring to life when you click the microphone. The lights are on a timer and extinguish again in 15 minutes (iirc).

I have to wonder how many pilots have come into an uncontrolled field at 0200 to find it all lit up, and then had the lights go out on them in the middle of their final because the 15 minute clock ran out. Would probably make for an amusing CVR.

You only have to have them go out on you one time and you'll never let that happen again. I would always re-click the lights when lining up on final approach, just to restart the clock.

There's an AMA on reddit. Any chance it's you!

BTW, I haven't been on here in quite some time, but to this day, this is still my favorite thread of all time. Check out reddit's AMA. Would be awesome if it's you!!!

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comment...ial_pilot_ama/

No, not me. There are a couple of giveaways: he's a corporate pilot and is in his 20's. I read a little of the thread and would probably read more, but I find the reddit format kind of tedious.

Thanks for the link. I'll probably delve into it some more.

Re the Skywest incident in LGA, how unusual is it for the CA to take over from the FO when the aircraft is already below 400 ft?

I think you're referring to Southwest Flight 345 on July 22.

It's pretty unusual for the Captain to have to take over, but it does happen. I'm trying to think if I ever had to do it and I think I probably did once or twice when I was a check airman at ACA. It would have been with pilots during their IOE and in demanding weather conditions (i.e. they were new to the plane and I just thought it was prudent to switch controls).

I can give you my best guess as to the scenario in this incident. (Disclaimer: it might not even be close to what happened.) The FO was probably getting a little high and fast. A go around should have been executed (this is the guideline at most airlines: if you're not fully configured and on speed by 500' agl in visual conditions, then you should go around). But no one wants to make an "unnecessary" go around and the Captain may have felt that he could salvage the approach, so he took over and tried to get the plane on the ground. Hard to know what happened at this point, but coming in high and hot to a short runway is not the way the coach drew up the play. There's excess energy to dissipate and trying to force a plane on a runway can have bad results.

Yes, of course I meant Southwest. Thank you!

Yessss! Finally after years I can respond, ask a question and say thanks!

Flying from marseille Mp2 to Ibiza today, and to my delight the plane did a go around. Not as I expected due to runway congestion but due to wind. This made a lot of sense afterwards... It's was a Boeing 773 800 series I think (had wing tips) and I thought it was a little less stable than most (Tbh I enjoy being thrown around on airplanes)

It was Ryanair Btw, the thing is for those who don't know, ibiza is a party town, so everyone cheers on landing anyway, then Ryanair play a landing chime, which got a second cheer. Much amusement..... I digress

So on the go around I was delighted cos I get to ask this.... I spoke to the captain who said it was only 7 to 10 mph, but in all directions... Have you experienced similar and is this quite common?

And thank you so much for the Internets best thread, I've spent countless days reading it and am fascinated. Thanks

And do you recall any ruffled feathers on the part of the FO after you told them (gently, I'm sure) that they seemed to be in over their heads?

I realize that every pilot's training and mindset is "safety above ego," but I also wonder if there might be some after-the-fact defensiveness when the captain takes over like that.

There probably is that feeling of defensiveness for someone who's been in the plane for a while. But guys on IOE (especially new hires) seem don't seem to have that reaction at all. The few times I can think of that this occurred when I was checking out someone new, he actually seemed relieved.

But egos are present in the cockpit on some occasions. I've felt that reaction myself when flying with someone who starts "flight instructing" during an approach, constantly giving his opinion on how to manage the descent or the inputs to the autopilot. It's tempting (and I may have even done this once or twice) to just say to the Captain, "Would you feel more comfortable if you were flying the plane?" But usually we do try to foster an atmosphere of ego-free flying. It's not a mistake unless we both make it, so we back each other up and most pilots have a thick skin and encourage the other guy to speak up.

^ Thats one of the reasons I would probably not make a very good pilot or might not enjoy it, I would not know how to handle something annoying like someone "flight instructing" as you put it when I dont need it. Id probably say nothing for a pretty long time and then say something blunt out of frustration. I feel like cooperation with different kinds of personalities would be the most challenging part for me. Im a pretty patient guy and I get along very well with most people, its just that flying with someone you dont really get along with or who does things that really bug you must be hard. Im not good at communicating what bugs me by giving people hints or saying things softly in a way that gets the point through but isnt blunt.

And perhaps this is the kind of thing the shrink tries to identify during the job interview process to avoid potential awkward situations.

Yeah, im pretty sure i wouldnt pass the personality tests they do. And I think the interpersonal skills side of the job is probably at least as important as the technical flying the plane side (?). And what I meant is i really think Im a really nice guy, its just that handling conflicts and communicating is not my strong point which would probably be a problem and those potential conflicts would also affect my enjoyment of the job.

Random question alert: How often do you actually use the windshield wipers, I assume never in flight?

I don't think that piece of equipment has been mentioned yet itt.

On the ground, we'll use them if the rain is heavy enough to obscure taxiway signs. No one likes using them for long periods on the ground because they're noisy. So, except in the heaviest of rains, they will be turned on only for a few sweeps at a time. We'll have them on for a takeoff in moderate or heavy rain (but usually not if it's only light rain) and the non-flying pilot will turn them off shortly after takeoff (below 1000').

They're of no use during flight except when we're just about to touch down. If it's raining at the field, I'll usually just brief the other guy that I may call for the wipers below 200' (usually with a simple "Wipe me") just so I can better judge my flare.

The other use for windshield wipers is as a representative surface for determining if the plane is picking up ice. If we're in icing conditions, we always turn on the engine anti-ice (hot bleed air ducted directly to the engine inlet and cowling), but we don't turn on wing anti-ice unless we think there is actual ice formation on the airframe. There's not much of the airframe we can actually see from the cockpit and the one place ice build-up is very obvious is on the windshield wiper nut right in front of us.

I can just see a new guy getting out a tissue and dabbing your forehead.

Any ideas what happened to the UPS flight? I know that large cargo plans have weight and balance issues, but I am assuming the plane wouldn't have been able to take off if that was the case.

I'm sitting in a hotel in Atlanta, about to head to the airport for a round trip to Cancun. Just checked this thread and your comment actually made me laugh out loud. That's a funny image.

I didn't hear about this until getting in from Salt Lake City last night and I haven't gotten any details yet, but a W&B issue seems very unlikely.

Sorry if asked already but something I have been meaning to ask you for a while but kept forgetting.

We hear about how powerful the engines are on big commercial jets SO when a jet crashes sometimes the engines are still running right? So when the escape slide gets deployed infront of the engines why doesn't it get sucked into the engines?

Illustration:



This can't be safe surely?

The engines won't be running if the pilots are alive. One of the things they do before commanding an evacuation, and before they exit the cockpit, is shut down the engines.

To have a situation that you describe is unlikely, but I suppose it's conceivable. You have the airplane come to rest with the pilots incapacitated and one or more engines running. If the flight attendants are still alive and capable of running the evacuation, one of their duties is to assess an exit before using it. Thus, they will look out and make sure there is no fire on that side or, in this case, a running engine that could be a danger.

For the engine to actually suck up a deployed slide, it would have to be operating at a high power setting. I've never heard of it happening.

Thanks!