The 15 minute touch & go in Fast & Furious 6 was pretty bad too. Unless there's a 40 mile runway somewhere I don't know about.

See this piece I wrote for Air & Space magazine's website:

Is Denzels Upside-Down Flying Trick Plausible?

Greg Feith, former ntsb investigator, said MH370 radar contacts may not be reliable as far as altitude since it may not be "smooth data". In your opinion, could this also apply to my recent sharkscope graph plunge? Imho theres nothing smooth about it. What are the odds the wreckage will ever be found??

I was always suspicious of the reports that said the plane climbed to 45,000'. That would be hard to do in a plane with a service ceiling of 43,100'. I'm not saying its impossible, but the plane would have to be extremely light to even have a shot. Plus, I thought they said that the transponder was off? So where does that altitude information come from? (rhetorical)

As to chances of finding the wreckage, I'm optimistic. But I won't be surprised either way.

good read!

Haha. I was being sarcastic about my recent super rough downswing in tournament poker, my graph on the online statistics site Sharkscope has taken a plunge. I was hoping it would be "rough data" but im afraid its real. And what remains my low stakes MTT career can maybe be recovered at the bottom of the Baltic Sea just off the coast of Finland, which should be a lot shallower than where they are looking for MH370.

Yeah, my understanding is that primary radar data is not always accurate in terms of altitude, so the information about the highest altitude seemed unreliable especially since there has been so much unreliable reporting by CNN and such and the Malesian authorities havent always seemed to have their act together either. You cant really tell where all the info is coming from and how reliable it is. Also, I dont see a reason for a pilot to take the aircraft to that altitude and a hijacker whos not trained would probably crash if he did. I have to say I find it interesting how reluctant the experts have been to publicly say that a pilot did it. Id think it has been clear for some time that the likely cause is deliberate action on the part of one of the pilots.

Anyway, I hope they find the wreckage and the black boxes to get some closure. Although the boxes could maybe have been cut of by pulling the circuit breakers? Hopefully there is information to be gained anyway. The tough thing about all of this is the poor family members who have had to live through the rollercoaster ride that the search has been so far.

Also: isnt Greg cool?

Amazing there aren't more accidents with these guys.

Jesus....how is it there are only 117 views of this monstrosity? Unbelievable.

Thanks so much for keeping up this thread W0X0F. 👍👍👍 Waiting for your book deal any day now.

lol, wow.

Reminded me of this one. I think it was talked about here already few years ago

Ah, that one seems to be a nicer version. This seems to be a more complete version.

Hey woxof, what does "RVR" mean? I've heard it mentioned on several ATC coms on approach.

RVR is Runway Visual Range, a measure of horizontal visibility on the runway. Airports with Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) might have anywhere from 0 to 4 RVR sensors. For large, high volume airports, three seems to be the most common configuration and they are referred to as Landing, Midpoint and Rollout RVR. For airports with very long runways, there may be a fourth RVR.

The readings from these sensors will determine whether or not we can actually attempt the approach and, if so, what type of approach (i.e. whether or not an autoland is called for). It's also used to determine if we can takeoff legally (we need a minimum of 600' RVR). These limits and restrictions don't apply to flights under Part 91.

A lot of smaller airports with ILS may only have one RVR on a runway. For example, you may have runway 17/35 that has RVR for runway 35, but nothing for landing in the other direction. The minimums for runway 35 might be 1/2 mile or 1800' RVR, whereas the minimums for runway 17 are simply 1/2 mile. Thus, if you're coming into the field and they are reporting a prevailing visibility of 1/4 mile, you can't legally attempt the landing on runway 17, but you may be able to land on 35 if they are reporting RVR of at least 1800'.

I watched both of these videos multiple times. Chilling! The lack of situational awareness, coupled with really poor communication, could have easily resulted in a mini-Tenerife accident. Full credit to the USAir crew that declined a takeoff clearance that was given by a clueless, bone-headed controller.

I went to the current PVD taxi diagram and I was confused because it has changed significantly since the time of this incident. There are no longer parallel runways there; runway 5L/23R is now just a taxiway. Also, some of the taxiway designations have changed.

The problem here began when United 1448 inexplicably turned onto taxiway Bravo, rather than continuing on November. This took them to the active runway (5R/23L). Then, when the United Captain realized he was in the wrong place he initially reported his position as the intersection of 23R and 16. On his next transmission, he corrected this error and said it was 23L. This is a critical piece of information. Unfortunately, the controller fixated on his first, erroneous report and she assumed he wasn't near the active runway.

She clears USAir for takeoff and they showed extremely good judgment in declining to go. The controller is actually irritated with them, making her snarky comment that they can hold short, even though United isn't near their runway (but they were!).

Lack of situational awareness can happen on the ground, especially at night with low visibility. Taxi charts even indicate "hot spots" (areas with greatest potential for confusion) so that pilots increase their vigilance there. I don't think the charts showed hot spots when this incident occurred.

Current PVD Taxi Diagram (notice Hot Spots, e.g. HS1)




United screwed up, no doubt about it. But the controller completely lost her composure and she was only saved by the USAir crew's good decision making.

That's a perfect example of both good and bad safety-focused culture/decision making.

Edit: Also a perfect example of why you should be calm and polite whenever you're in a disagreement with someone. The USAir crew just says their decision and doesn't argue. The controller gets all snarky and manages to look even worse in this situation.

Figured I'd post this here, US Airways WTF: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthi...aphic-things-y

Some excellent twitter reactions on that us airways situation listed here http://mashable.com/2014/04/14/us-airways-best-tweets/

The talk on runway incursions somehow got me to thinking about an incident where a Finnair crew attempted to take off from a taxiway: http://news.aviation-safety.net/2012...xiway-takeoff/
Seems quite surprising for both pilots to make this mistake, especially since the lights are of a different color on a taxiway but I guess all kinds of mistakes happen when the workload gets too high. I also found this: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...axiway-366475/
A similar situation occurred with singapore airlines flight 006, which attempted a takeoff from the wrong runway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapo...nes_Flight_006

Its my impression that some efforts have been made to prevent these mistakes as well as runway incursions but I believe the number of runway incursions is really quite high and it might be one of the most significant risks in aviation today. I guess it also varies from one country to another. What i find astonishing with the recording posted above is that they said they had someone take off in front of them and they were on an active runway and the lady in the tower thinks she knows best.

I am up in Quebec for a UFC event and a coworker was on this flight
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...port-1.2610423
Said the flight was 4 hours late, was stuck in the mud for an hour and they had to exit the plane via a standard v-ladder. Pilots stayed in the cockpit the entire time and were unapologetic. He blasted them on twitter and included a pic of the tire in the mud.

Check out his tweets
https://twitter.com/FellerBob/status/455954252007890944

Back to Airplane movies...the original "Airplane" is still the funniest!

When taxing on one engine, anything done differently then when using two engines?

I agree. It holds up pretty well too. Younger people seeing it for the first time must wonder what the deal is with the Hare Krishna scene. That kind of panhandling hasn't been allowed in airports for many years now.

There are really only two limitations to taxiing on one engine: (1) making tight turns into the running engine (i.e. a left turn with the left engine running) can be difficult and require excess power, which has the potential to blow over things like baggage carts, and (2) if we are taxiing in icing conditions, we can only run one air conditioning pack with engine anti-ice on. This is so that there is sufficient bleed air for effective anti-icing. (Note: this is a limitation on the 757/767 and may not apply to some other types.)

As a consequence of the first limitation mentioned above, we have certain areas (e.g. congested ramp areas with little maneuvering room) where we are not allowed to single-engine taxi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4CizzE-zZo

Unless they're glorious Naval Aviators flying the F/A-18E! . Then the landing is like drifting that F1 car into a parking spot with an inch to spare! There's a reason we make fun of the AF dudes

I once flew into an airport for a weekend trip and parked my jet on a newly paved surface, unbeknownst to me. I came back 48 hours later and the ramp had basically shattered under both of my mains, lol. That took some un-doing!

Suppose I won the lottery and wanted to buy and become certified to fly a single-pilot jet such as a Citation Mustang. Would this be possible without first learning to fly in a prop plane? And if so, how strongly would you advise against it?

My father would agree with you (Naval Aviator; USNA '50).