The responsibilities are spelled out in the safety briefing card. Like you (and most passengers), I can't remember the last time I really read it either. IIRC, you have to understand English and be able and willing to assist the FAs in an emergency evacuation. This goes beyond simply opening the door. In an actual emergency, the FA might tell you to not open the door (perhaps that side of the airplane is not safe) and to direct other passengers away from that door; i.e. you may have to "stand guard." In a planned evacuation (i.e., one in which we know before landing that an evacuation is possible or likely), the FAs will go to the emergency row passengers and brief them on what is specifically expected of them after landing.

A flight attendant could give a more complete answer to your question. Their training emphasizes this event and, of course, focuses on what happens in the cabin. For the pilots, our training covers the things we do in the cockpit (communicating with ATC and the FAs, making PAs, securing the cockpit). Our training assumes that the cabin crew (FAs) will have that portion of the plane in control.

How does this happen with all the navigation aides available today?

http://www.nycaviation.com/2013/11/b.../#.Uo4jScReY4J

Will those pilots loose their jobs?

It's possible because this crew wasn't using all of their available resources. They saw a runway and fixated on it, convincing themselves that it was their intended destination. At that point, they probably went visual and didn't cross-check with the information available in the plane (especially their map display).

Offhand, I can think of two places I used to fly into that had airports nearby with a runway oriented in the same direction. One was a little airport near State College, PA. After turning final you would see a small airport to the right of centerline just a few miles from UNV. It didn't help that State College was an uncontrolled field and clearance for the approach came from New York Center, which would lose radar contact as you made the approach. So, in low viz situations a pilot could pick up the wrong runway and fool themselves into thinking it was the one they want. It never actually happened to any of our pilots at ACA, but I think I remember hearing that it happened to some other airline.

Another place where this could be a problem was on the approach into Ft. Myers, FL. We had a note in our approach charts warning us of an uncontrolled field with a similar runway configuration which could be mistaken for RSW.

Last January, an Air Force C-17 landed at an airport several miles short of the runway at MacDill AFB. (Here's a link.)

I have a hard time imagining I could make this mistake, but humans seem to find a way. It's actually a dream (nightmare) I've had a few times before. I land somewhere and realize that nothing looks right. Then I realize just how screwed I am.

Seems pretty unforgivable to me, but I don't know if they lose their jobs over it.

Flying on both mainline jets and regional jets lately, I have noticed (maybe just my imagination) that the pilots of the regional jets seem to have "more fun" with the controls. What I mean by that is, the turns seem more pronounced, the throttle seems more wide open on takeoff, etc...If indeed I'm not imagining this, is it because the regional jets are smaller and have more of a "sports car" feel vs. a B737 or MD80?

When you use the auto-land feature, does it do "everything", i.e. make the flap adjustments, lower the gear, etc...Are you really just managing the landing? How often do you have to use the auto-land feature to keep it current?

Most of this is probably just perception because it's a smaller plane, as you surmise. But I remember when I was a Captain at a regional and I would sometimes get a guy in the right seat who would be a little abrupt when it was his leg, i.e. rolling into turns a little too quickly or making large abrupt power changes for a climb or descent. On just a few occasions I actually had to let a guy know that he needed to ease up on the "cowboy" flying and concentrate on giving the passengers the smooth ride they expect.

The auto-land doesn't do any of the things you mention. It only tracks the localizer (extended centerline) and the glideslope and it will then reduce the power to idle for the landing flare and then raise the nose for a smooth landing. It's up to the pilots to get the plane to a point where it can intercept the localizer and glideslope. They also have to manage the speed reduction (by setting it on the Mode Control Panel, which provides input to the auto-throttles) and lower the gear and flaps at appropriate times. Lastly, they need to arm the auto-brakes for whichever level of braking is desired (there are five settings; we usually use 2 or 3).

If everything goes the way it should, the plane will land on the centerline and then come to a stop.

I always kind of forget the exact requirements here, but I think the plane needs to have a successful auto-land every 90 days, so we'll occasionally have a note on our flight plan requesting that we perform one if we can. If we do that, we make a note in the logbook that it was successfully completed.

There's also a requirement for pilots to perform an auto-land every so often. I think it's one every 180 days, but I could be wrong on that. Every time we go to recurrent training, we get an auto-land in the sim and this satisfies the currency requirement.

Should finish up my private within the next month. After all is said and done, it will be about 18 months start to finish. I've been doing it while flying a desk.

I've decided this is what I'm going to do. I realize that everyone's situation is different, but are you in the "don't take on aviation debt" camp or are you in the "follow your dream and do whatever it takes" camp?

This one --> "follow your dream and do whatever it takes"

If you're determined to go this route, it's worth taking on the debt. The reason is tied to the seniority that you will have. Doing it all on a budget could mean years of seniority lost and even a few months of seniority can make a difference.

To give an example, when I got hired at ACA back in '93, there were guys upgrading to Captain who had been hired just 11 months earlier. Eleven months! It took me three and a half years before I could hold the left seat. That's a big difference in pay when you figure they got their pay increase in less than a year...25 months faster than my increase.

Now that winter is upon us...it has always made me wonder how you can land in freezing rain and it not affect the airframe? I believe ITT you mentioned the wings are heated. Is that the only surface you have to worry about? What do you do different for a wintry mix landing as opposed to just plain snow?

What are the procedures for the timing of lowering the flaps upon leaving the gate? Most of the time they are always lowered before we leave the gate area. Every once in a while, it won't be done until we are well in route to the runway. I know from this thread that you wouldn't lower them if you are getting de-iced.

Do you like the heads-up display in bad weather?

No question just a TR. I flew Auckland NZ to Wellington last Friday and boy was it a scary landing. Wellington airport is a notoriously windy place commonly getting cold strong winds from Antarctica. Anyway pilot (a female) comes over the PA and says" folks who fly to Welly regularly will be ok but for you first times, its going to get a bit rough but please don't worry its pretty normal."I watched a few landings from the ground and the pilots really earned their money! Airport was closed the next day for all landings and most take-offs.

The wings are definitely the critical component on the plane. If ice starts forming on the wings, it can alter the airflow over them and have a serious affect on their ability to generate lift. On the rest of the airframe, the only affect is to add weight and drag, which could potentially be serious in cases of extreme accumulation but is not generally an issue.

When flying or taxiing in icing conditions (defined as visible moisture, or visibility less than one mile, and outside air temperature less than 10° C), we operate with engine anti-ice on. This provides hot engine bleed air to the engine intakes to prevent ice accumulation there which can foul sensors and have an adverse affect on airflow to the engine (with a significant affect on engine performance). You might wonder why we use 10° C (50° F), since that is well above freezing. The reason is that there is a drop in temperature in that intake air due to pressure changes. It's the same reason that general aviation pilots, flying in small piston engine planes, apply carburetor heat during approaches on hot humid days. Air entering the carburetor can drop 40-50°.

Our usual procedure is to lower the flaps to the takeoff position prior to leaving the gate area. Over the past few years, this has become a high visibility item in our procedures due to some instances of crews aborting takeoffs due to incorrect flap settings (the airplane generates a warning when power is applied for takeoff if the plane isn't properly configured).

If de-icing is planned, we leave the flaps up until we are ready for de-icing and then we select the takeoff setting prior to the application of glycol. I think at one time we left them up during de-icing and then set them prior to takeoff, but procedures are modified sometimes over the years according to the latest thinking on safest practices. I don't try to remember this stuff. When faced with winter weather and the potential for de-icing, I pull the manual out of the flight bag and turn to "Supplemental Procedures: Cold Weather Operations." This gives very detailed guidance on all this stuff, including special checklists for the de-icing process and guidance on any special takeoff requirements for the current weather.

I just don't encounter this stuff often enough to trust my memory on the fine points. In fact, I consider it a successful winter if I can avoid de-ice operations. I'm currently on Day #1 of a four day trip and it looks like I may have to deal with some of this on Sunday (I have three flights that day: ATL-JAX, JAX-ATL, ATL-SFO).

I have not yet flown a plane equipped with a HUD, though I've flown with many pilots who have and they all really liked it.

I don't need that kind of excitement on landing, but I'd much rather be up front flying the plane than sitting in back.

From what you have said ITT, this looks a little too close for a go-around.

http://nycaviation.com/forum/threads...ingham-Airport

I was in row 2! Always like it up the front as my theory is that in an emergency of any kind the pilot will do his best to lift the nose just before impact!

I saw that video and I think they made a good decision to go around. It's never too late to initiate this maneuver, though we typically think of a missed approach initiated at or above DH (Decision Height, associated with a precision approach) or MDA (Minimum Descent Altitude, associated with a non-precision approach).

A rejected landing, on the other hand, can be initiated at any point...even after the tires have touched the runway. We occasionally practice this in the simulator: cleared to land and just as we are about to touch down, the "controller" broadcasts: "Delta 204, go around, vehicle on the runway!" Obviously the only time we'd actually do this after the tires touched down is when the alternative is to have some kind of collision.

That's an interesting theory, but I've heard that the rear of the plane is statistically the safest place to be (I have nothing to back that up).

As comedian Jay Hickman used to say, "Have you ever heard of a plane backing into a mountain?"

That's a good line. I'm going to keep it chambered for future use.

I remember reading an article about this once and I think this is right but I remember the difference wasn't that meaningful.

Which is the safest seat on an aircraft?
The latest in our Travel Truths series looks at the safest place to be seated if you're unlucky enough to be involved in a plane crash.

...The producers of the documentary, The Crash, arranged for a Boeing 727 carrying cameras, sensors and crash test dummies with breakable “bones” to be deliberately crashed into the Sonoran Desert in Mexico.

...Experts concluded that none of the plane’s first-class passengers would have survived, but 78 per cent of the other passengers would have, with the chance of survival increasing the closer they were sitting to the rear of the aircraft.

Though an analysis of a single crash is hardly decisive, its findings did support a study by Popular Mechanics, carried out in 2007. The magazine analysed all crashes since 1971 and found that those in rear seats (behind the wing’s trailing edge) were safest – survival rates were 69 per cent as opposed to 56 per cent over the wing and 49 per cent for those at the front of the plane.

Just wanted to say thank to you for posting these (and for the PDF compilations). Totally enthralling.

You can thank baronworm for the pdf files (greatly appreciated).

One regret I have about this thread is that I had a lot of embedded images that no longer work because I hosted them on my Apple me.com account and they eliminated that feature. So someone new to this thread won't see any of those.

I still have the graphics (now on ImageShack) and I'd love to go back and fix those links, but I don't have edit privilege. I've sent a few PMs to mods about this but have never gotten a reply.

Depending on the number of images and posts it can be a fair amount of work. If you want to PM me with links to posts and the new image urls I can take a look at swapping them out.

Thanks so much! Nice of you to offer. I'll do all the research and put together a comprehensive list of post #'s and url's and PM them to you. It probably won't happen until 2014...got a pretty busy schedule the rest of this year.

When I was a kid in the 80s I used to get airsick a lot, it seemed like every descent was incredibly bumpy, with lots of turns and weird drops. Nowadays, nearly every approach is super smooth and comfortable. Is it my perception that has changed, or is it the flying?

The other option is to give you some mod powers to edit your own posts. I'll discuss with tptb.