That was in the 1950's, using German scientists captured during and after World War 2. I think we're caught up now.

There are three kinds of flight physicals: First, Second and Third Class. The Third Class is required for a private pilot and is good for five years for pilots younger than 40. After reaching 40 years of age, the Third Class must be renewed every two years.

The Second Class medical is required for any pilot flying for hire in any capacity (flight instructing, towing banners, carrying parachutists, flying as a First Officer for an airline) and must be renewed every year.

The First Class medical is required for any pilot exercising the privileges of an Airline Transport Pilot certificate, i.e. acting as pilot-in-command for a Part 135 or Part 121 airline. It is also required for the First Officer (second-in-command privileges) in international operations requiring three or more pilots.

I get a First Class medical twice a year (in fact, I'm scheduled to get one this coming Monday) and because I'm over 40 years old I get an EKG once a year as part of this exam.

(All of these requirements, and the durations of the various medical certificates, are covered by FAR 61.23.)

The thoroughness of the check up can vary greatly from one AME (Aero Medical Examiner) to the next. For obvious reasons, some pilots prefer the kind of doc who kind of "pencil whips" the exam. (In case it's not obvious, the reason is that each exam is a potential career ender.) I've had both extremes and most doctors fall somewhere in the middle.

One guy I used to go to who was very thorough was a Marine fighter pilot in WWII. He flew the F4U Corsair, a great plane you may remember from the old TV show "Baa Baa Black Sheep." Anyway, this guy would actually do the old "turn your head and cough" check and he also checked things like balance and basic coordination. He's the only doc I've had who ever checked those things. Doc Albers passed away many years ago and the guy I go to now is a fine doctor and his exam is more perfunctory.

Here's what I expect this coming Monday. Before going in, I'll fill out FAA Form 8500-8 on line. (Click on that link if you want to see the types of questions we get asked.) When I complete the form, I get a confirmation number which I will give to the people at the doctor's office so they can print out the form.

I'll pee in a cup for whatever checks they do with that (diabetes?) and then I'll get weighed. The doctor's assistant will administer an eye exam and also the EKG if I'm due for one. The EKG takes longer for her to set up (attaching the leads to my torso) than to actually run. The machine sends the results directly to the FAA in Oklahoma City.

After these checks, I'll be left to wait for the doctor. He will come in and do the standard auscultation, checking for lung and bowel sounds I guess. Maybe some deep breaths. Then just a brief chat where he wants to know if I have any medical complaints or if anything has changed since the last visit.

That's pretty much it. I'm usually in and out in less than 30 minutes. This may be surprising to you (it was to me), but I guess a big part of this process is that we are required to disclose any conditions or symptoms we have. We sign Form 8500-8, attesting to the fact that everything on it is complete and accurate.

The company doesn't get involved at all in this process except to generate reminders to us when we report for a trip if our medical is about to expire. They don't place any additional requirements on us beyond having a current medical certificate in our possession.

There are things that can end a flying career that would be little more than an irritation or inconvenience in an office job. One I can think of offhand is a chronic inner-ear problem. I'm sure there are others and this might make an interesting question to ask my AME this coming Monday.

When teaching students to fly single engine planes, they learn early on that you need right-rudder on take-off and climbout for a few reasons. One of the reasons is P-Factor, which is the right (downswinging) side of the prop "grabbing" more air than the left (up-swinging side) when at high angles of attack. But if P-factor results in more thrust on the right side of the prop disk, then shouldn't the gyroscopic 90degree effect mean that the result is a pitching up moment?

Ever see any UFOs?

I see what you're saying, but you are confusing the "lift" produced by the prop with a force being applied to the prop. If I try to expand on this explanation, I'll likely back myself into a corner, showing my limited understanding of physics and aerodynamics, so I think I'll leave it there.

Just this morning, I went out to pick up my newspaper from the driveway. I looked up and saw something up in the sky (Flying Object). Couldn't make out it what it was (Unidentified).

UFO.

Thank you as always for the detailed reply. Actually, what triggered the question for me (and a student) was probably the case of Lokomotive Hockey team crash few years ago. You can see in the Mayday episode
(Between 32:30 and 37:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcAO6x3aUhY ) that they have detailed discussion of the pilots experience and medical status. It turned out that one of them had a nerve/muscle problem that affected their 'feel' of the break. Add to that that they were flying to similar, but different planes concurrently (YAK 40 and YAK 42), and it seems that first officer was pushing the break during takeoff without realizing that he is pushing the break. A small medical problem that would have never affected anything else in daily/office life.

On a related question/note, my sense from the SIM was that the breaks from the 75x and 76x are the same. But I presume it is one of the (many) things addressed in variants training.

There's no doubt that applying any brake pressure during the takeoff will cause a longer than normal takeoff roll, thereby invalidating the performance numbers being used (i.e. you might not have enough runway). Any medical condition that makes it difficult to perceive the pressure you're applying obviously has very serious potential consequences. I've never heard of anything like this and I don't think it's something that could be hidden for the long term (the other pilot will notice), but there's nothing in the flight physical that would detect this.

I've never been able to detect any difference in braking between the 757 and 767. It likely, I suppose, that the actual brakes are different sizes due to the differing takeoff and landing weights of the planes, but I don't even know if that's the case. We do have different types of brakes on certain aircraft within our fleet. Some are steel brakes, others are carbon. (The reason they're not all the same is that the planes are acquired over the years from different sources. For example, we have some old TWA planes and some from Gulf Air, iirc). The difference is not discernible to pilots, at least not to me, but there might be some slight difference in effectiveness. The one significant difference I've heard in the past, and this is of more interest to mechanics and to the company for bottom-line brake cost, is the wear of the brakes and how often they have to be maintained and/or replaced.

Great thread, I've made through the whole thing and here's a question I'm quite sure hasn't been asked...

Looking at the 2 longest runways at SFO on Google maps (10L/28R and 10R/28L) it appears based on the black marks that nearly all the landings take place from the 28 ends. Prevailing winds? Operational constraint? Or am I misinterpreting?

Thanks in advance!

I've probably been into SFO a few dozen times and I think I've usually landed on 28R (occasionally 28L) and taken off on 01L. Your guess about prevailing winds is probably the main reason. As I type this response, I went and checked the current weather at SFO:

The wind is out of the west (280°) at 19 knots, gusting to 25 knots (the peak wind was at 0004Z and was 270° at 34 knots). I guess they must occasionally get easterly winds, but it's rare. But if it's strong enough, they would use Runway 10 (L or R) for arrivals.

I notice that they don't have ILS approaches for 10L or R, only RNAV approaches (non-precision approaches). This is another indicator that use of those runways for arrival is rare.

never landed a plane at sfo but my home base is sql about 10 miles south.

prevailing winds here come from the west -- where the ocean is -- for most of the year. in either fall or spring it's common to get the reverse effect (easterly winds) but usually i see winds at ~230-300.

another advantage of rwy 28 is that the approach keeps planes over the bay and away from populated areas (iow every square inch of real estate in the region ).

This is only marginally on-topic since it's not SFO related, but I've noticed that the direction of operations at SeaTac correlates very highly with the rest of the weather. The 9-10 months of the year that Seattle is Seattle, takeoffs and landings are southbound. On sunny days, like in the last two months, everything is northbound. I'm sure it's the winds but I find that correlation really interesting. But Puget Sound has its own crazy weather system anyway.

this is a pretty good summary of the Puget Sound Convergence Zone and its effects:
http://www.komonews.com/weather/faq/4306427.html

cliff mass's blog talks about the pscz (and lots of other local weather phenomena) all the time.

(current front page is about a haboob, which is probably the best-named weather phenomenon ever)

I was flying with a medical condition the other day: being an idiot. Tookoff with the parking break set. My old man looks and me and goes " I thought we were kinda slow on takeoff"

Chalk that one up in the oops category

I'm not sure what the explanation is either. I'm not a fixed wing guy and I had to look up the concept of p-factor but it seems to be similar to a helicopter moving forward. In the case of a helicopter the extra lift over the right side causes the helicopter to pitch up so I'm not sure why the airplane would be different.

Are you familiar with the Manassas airport? The ILS goes to RWY 16 but they almost always land 34, both due to winds and to avoid conflicts with Dulles. That approach is part of the local area orientation for new pilots where I work but it always ends up being waived because you can't ever fly it. No idea why they made it like that.

I'm sure it's not any different (physics being physics and all). And like I said, I hate to go down this worm hole, but here goes...

From my research, it appears that the two forces (in a small prop plane) that are most responsible for the tendency of the plane to drift left during the takeoff roll are:

(1) the torque of the propeller - the prop is rotating clockwise (as seen from the cockpit), making the body of the plane want to rotate the opposite direction

(2) the slipstream - the prop causes a corkscrew airflow over the airframe, with the slipstream impacting the left side of the vertical stabilizer, resulting in the nose wanting to go left

In taildragger aircraft, p-factor and gyroscopic precession were also large factors, due to the fact that the plane of the propeller is canted at the start of the takeoff roll (i.e. the axis of rotation is not horizontal). During the first part of the roll, p-factor could be significant in a taildragger. I found the following explanation in wikipedia (I added the bold part):

When the pilot of a taildragger raises the tail during the takeoff roll, the gyroscopic effect will cause a left turning tendency:





After doing this research, it now seems to me that the effect of p-factor and gyroscopic precession should not really be much of a factor during the takeoff roll in a modern tricycle gear prop plane, since the axis of the prop's rotation is horizontal and no pitch change is being made until takeoff.

I do have a recollection of all this being kind of glossed over by my primary instructor, and now I understand why. The left turning tendency during the takeoff roll is real and cannot be denied, but I'm now wondering what the primary cause of it is. As I said, the p-factor and gyro effect would have been much more pronounced in a taildragger so that's probably why they became staples of the explanation that was handed down. After all, taildraggers used to be the norm. Everyone learned in a Piper Cub (or similar airplane). These days, the majority of pilots have never been at the controls of a taildragger. I have less than 10 hours logged in taildraggers myself.

Familiar with it? I learned to fly there! Back when I started flying at Manassas, it had one runway and no control tower.

Not sure why they put the ILS on 16L, but it may have to do with the Quantico Restricted area south of the field. This may have made it impossible to lay out an approach to 34R.

Since you used to fly the MD-80 series I was wondering what effect an extremely light load has on your calculations. I was on an MD-80 recently that maybe had 20 passengers. Do you load less fuel, reach V1 much faster, load cargo differently, etc...?

Also, since Delta has both Airbus and Boeing, how hard it is to switch from one to the other? If you have flown Boeing for 20 years, can you easily switch to Airbus and feel like you have the same comfort level if a problem arises?

I know you've said you're not too particular about hotels but do crew members have any say in where they stay? Do you generally stay together as a group?

I have often seen crews all check in together. Makes sense since they all came from the same place, can share a cab, etc.

Last time I saw a crew check in together in Vegas, it was at Caesars. Must be nice...

We don't carry less fuel for a light load. Yes, we burn more fuel to carry more weight, but it's not a significant amount. Fuel load is based on a nominal fuel burn rate for the plane at the planned airspeed. So the main things that determine the amount of fuel needed are flight time and the weather at destination (i.e. is an alternate airport required or is en route holding likely?).

We do reach V1 faster for a light airplane, not just because we accelerate faster but also because V1 is lower for a lighter weight. The approach speed is also lower for a lightweight airplane.

The loading of cargo on an MD-88 is not something I can comment on with any specific knowledge but, yes, the loaders have to take into account the center for gravity for the plane so they will probably spread out the cargo so that we don't have to make all the passengers sit forward or aft. This happens from time to time on small regional jets that have only one cargo compartment.

Years ago, when I used to fly the CRJ from IAD to LGA, we often had to have passengers sit in the aft section of the plane because we had so few checked bags on board and the plane would be nose heavy. On occasion, we had to add 1000 lbs or more of ballast to the cargo compartment so that we could be within our acceptable CG envelope. You don't see this happen on larger planes because they have cargo compartments beneath the passengers running the length of the plane and this allows for proper distribution of the weight.

We're only current and qualified to fly one type at any given time (the 757 and 767 are considered one type), so switching from one to the other requires going to the schoolhouse for a month of ground school, procedures trainers, simulator time and then a check ride. By the end of that time, the old plane has been pretty completely dumped and replaced by the new one.

I flew the MD-88 for several years, but I wouldn't feel safe in it today without refresher training. I could still fly it (though not legally), but all the systems are different enough that I wouldn't feel comfortable with engine starts, manipulating the electrical and pneumatic systems, and using the Mode Control Panel (MCP) to direct the autopilot.

Since I've been out of the plane for more than two years, I would have to go through the entire course of training to be re-qualified to fly the MD-88. My older brother is about to go through that process. He left the MD-88 right seat in 2000 to move to the 767 and now he is going to the left seat (Captain) of the MD-88.

Yes, we do have a say. Our Pilot Working Agreement (PWA), aka "the contract," spells out some requirements for whatever hotel we use. I've never looked at this section before, but your question prompted me to do so. The language of the contract is tedious (it's a legal document, after all) but basically it says things like "In all domestic markets, the preference for a layover hotel will be a branded hotel that is affiliated with a national chain." It also specifies that we will stay downtown for layovers greater than 12 hours. Shorter layovers will be at a hotel near the airport.

Our pilot union has a Hotel Committee that works with the company to choose suitable lodging for crew members. This committee also addresses any complaints that crew members may have about a particular hotel.

Yeah, Caesar's would be nice. That was probably a crew from a foreign carrier. I don't know of any U.S. airlines that stay there. We stay at the Westin on Flamingo Drive when in Vegas. Nice clean place just a block off the strip. Several airlines use the Westin and they treat crews great.

I dated one, cabin crew not only stay free at super nice hotels regularly for many airlines, usually hilton +, but they can check in and check out whenever they want bc of their special deals w the hotels. They also get money every city they go to.

Also, due to my firsthand experience with this, being CC sucks quite a bit in almost every way imaginable. A far cry from the world traveling stewardess of the 60s when you are stuck running 2 hr turnarounds 20 times a month for your first year.

Ok way to be a dick about it. A simple yes or no would have been sufficient.