Japan is raising the retirement age for airline pilots from 64 to 67. Do you see this happening in the US soon?

http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...-with-shortage

Something's fishy about that explanation. The fueler doesn't determine how much fuel goes on the plane; he just pumps the amount that was ordered. It's more likely that the error, if one was made, came from the dispatcher who did the flight planning. While it would be unusual that the fuel for an extra hour of flight time would lead to an overweight situation, there are other considerations that might have contributed to the problem.

Was it a bad weather day? Or at least was the weather at the destination bad? If so, there would have to be more fuel loaded to reach an alternate airport. If a suitable alternate is far away (possible if the bad weather is covering a large geographic area), then the fuel necessary just to make the one hour flight, then fly to the alternate airport, then fly 45 minutes at cruise power (this is the requirement for flights operating under Instrument Flight Rules...IFR) might put the airplane near maximum weight for the runway length and environmental conditions. If you now inadvertently fuel for a two hour flight, that might make it overweight for a full load of people and bags.

This is why it's not unusual for a flight to be "weight limited" and have to leave people or bags behind to satisfy fuel requirements. It even happens on large planes. I once jumpseated on a 747 from San Francisco to Honolulu that was weight limited and had to leave eight passengers behind. Luckily, I was still able to jumpseat since jumpseaters are considered part of the airplane's BOW (Basic Operating Weight) by United Airlines. I remember the Captain having to explain to the gate agent, who wanted to take me off and put a paying passenger on, that I was equivalent to the furnishings on the plane as far as weight and balance are concerned.

Our flight plan has a "planned fuel" number and a "minimum fuel" number. The planned fuel is what we're supposed to leave the gate with and the minimum fuel is what we must have on board when we advance the throttles for takeoff. The difference between the two numbers is an amount that should easily cover the planned taxi time, but occasionally something unexpected happens to delay a flight on the ground. If we determine that we're going to go below that minimum fuel amount, we have to return to the gate for more fuel. The last time it happened to me, it was due to lengthy delays in getting de-iced at JFK. It's a pretty rare event.

When we find ourselves in a ground stop situation (usually caused by weather at the departure or destination airport*) we will often ask Ground Control for permission to shut down our engines to conserve fuel and hopefully avoid getting close to our minimum fuel.

*It can also happen because of a Presidential movement. Nothing is allowed to launch when he's flying in or out.

The age went from 60 to 65 in the U.S. just about seven years ago and I've heard rumors that there might be a move to push it to 70. My honest opinion is that age is a number and the aging process (and limitations associated with age) can vary significantly from one person to the next. We currently have two flight physicals a year and that's the place where the screening should occur.

I agree that pilots should be allowed to continue flying as long as they are healthy enough. However, if the physicals are the controls, perhaps they should be more rigorous, specially to include mental capability.

Here are the mental health requirements:
http://flightphysical.com/medical-st...ntal-1st-class

They are comprehensive and not taken lightly. IMO more rigor could have the unintended consequence of causing otherwise qualified pilots to hide treatable issues. I would rather fly with a pilot taking medication for minor depression than one that is untreated.

http://boingboing.net/2015/03/13/pil...a-man-dra.html

Two questions but I will ask in seperate posts.

On a few flights I have been on over the US I have been able to notice another aircraft on pretty much a parallel course to my flight. One flight I was able to observe for about 2.5 hours. The flight was lower(we were at FL380 so I am guessing the other flight was FL360). It was close enough to see it was an airbus 320 (or a variation).

Do you recall any longer (3 or 4 hour) flights in which you had another flight abeam you pretty much the whole time?I had wished the pilot let us knew who the other flight was.

HI WOXOF

I was wonder where you stand as a pilot or co-pilot on the level of non-essential communications with passengers.

On some flights the passengers hear pretty much nothing but the required info from the pilots. On other flights the pilot or co-pilot provide some interesting information on flying over historic landmarks or interesting places or interesting atmospheric phenomenon. This used to happen more frequently in the past. Why do we hear this less?

Is it because so many people have become veteran flyers, or is it that passengers sleep or work on planes more now and just don't want to be disturbed with non-essential inflight info?


I think it is neat when I pilot says something like.. "for those passengers on the left side of the aircraft, there is a great example of sun dogs." And then he goes on to give brief explanation of them (i.e. 22 degrees from sun, ice crystal prisms, etc).

Where do you stand on passing neat info to passengers when you have time and it is a daytime flight??

PS. I am a map/geography junkie and the interactive flight course map on some AA flights is awesome. Would love to see this on all flights. The flight route indicators with the aircraft nose about 200 miles ahead of the tail on a crappy map are pretty lame.

unnecessary trivia is nice when you're awake and not watching a movie / listening to music. otherwise it's extremely annoying. at least imho.

Pro move: I signed up for the last row in an Embraer 175, got moved to first class to fix the weight and balance.

In domestic airspace, two and a half hours is a long time to have another flight in sight on your same route. It's rare that the speed of the two aircraft match that closely. (and it's definitely on the same airway; there are no parallel airways that are close enough for you to see another plane).

Just a couple of weeks ago, I had an Allegiant MD-80 pass very slowly right above us. I could look straight up through my eyebrow window at his belly for several minutes as he pulled ahead.

This kind of thing happens frequently on the North Atlantic Track system. If you see another aircraft, it is most likely on your track, since the tracks are parallel and 60 miles apart. If speeds are compatible, you might see another plane and keep it in sight for several hours. More often, however, the speeds are slightly different one of the planes slowly outpaces the other one.

Now, I have followed another aircraft for several hours. For example, we might depart Las Vegas, heading back to New York, and take off right behind another airline going to the same airport. With seven or more miles in trail, we might never see him but we hear him on the radio, talking to the same controllers, all the way across the country.

When I flew the shuttle (Boston/New York/Washington D.C.), we were specifically told to keep all PAs very brief and to the point. Weather and time of arrival was pretty much it. On night flights, we also keep PAs to a minimum, knowing that many people want to sleep (especially true on red eye flights).

I'm not usually one to make sight seeing PAs en route, unless it's something pretty spectacular (the Grand Canyon is always a good one to point out). I do remember one time not long ago, passing over D.C. on a day with unlimited visibility, I just felt the need to point out the city. And then I mentioned that we would cross the Potomac River soon and everyone on the right side of the plane could see my house.

Also, when I make the arrival PA going into New York, I will often mention which side of the plane will have a good view of the city, but that's about it.

Why do you (or any pilot) announce the weather at the destination? I always find it useless info. I either already know the forecast or don't care. I certainly have no need for the wind direction and the visibility.

Hmmmm. Why? Why?

I guess it's just to have something to say. My "welcome aboard" announcement (and I never actually use that phrase because I cringe when I hear it), is brief: flight time en route, basic weather at the destination, and whether there will be any delays getting on our way.

I usually just mention the temperature and sky condition (sunny, cloudy, overcast). If it's very windy or if it's raining, I'll mention that too. I only include visibility if it's foggy (and that's all I say; I won't say it's a quarter mile visibility, for example). So my PA before leaving for Ft. Lauderdale yesterday went something like this "We're expecting an on-time departure to Ft. Lauderdale. Flight time will be two hours forty minutes from takeoff to landing and we're expecting nice weather when we arrive: scattered clouds and 80 degrees."

I've heard guys actually read the ATIS to passengers (when I'm in the back): "scattered clouds at 700 feet, overcast at 2000, visibility 2 miles in light rain, temperature 50, dew point 38, wind is two zero zero at 15 knots."

I fly in the back a lot, commuting to and from work, and I am probably like you: I don't like to hear long PA's that are seemingly made just to fill air time. I've become somewhat of a curmudgeon as a passenger. I've actually counted the number of times I'm "welcomed aboard" and it once got up to 18 times (one of them came half way to our destination when the Captain came on the PA and started off with "Once again, welcome aboard." There's another pet peeve, the constant use of "once again" to start any PA.

And as I've said before itt, you'll never EVER hear me say "sit back, relax and enjoy the flight."

Nice going Didace. You got me off on a mini-rant.

I don't really care about long announcements usually, except on Air Canada when they have an in flight entertainment system. You get interrupted once, get 10 seconds of whatever you're watching, and then get interrupted again with a stumbled over French translation.

Sometimes I think the pilots are just messing with the flight attendents and trying to think of new things to make them translate.

Wow I asked you about this wayyyyyyy back in 2010.....

Now that the runway has been approved, built and put into use, I wondered if you had been into FLL and used 10/28. If so, how noticeable is the slope?

I just went into FLL yesterday and flew out this morning, using runway 10L both times. I didn't notice a slope.

I just looked at the taxi chart for FLL and I see that the west end of 10L/28R has an elevation of 5' and the east end is 6'...pretty flat. The parallel runway has elevations of 10' on the east end and 65' on the west end. 10R/28L is 8000' long so, if my math is right, that's about a 0.39° slope.

Parallel runways and I didn't specify...That wasn't too swift on my part. It's actually 10R/28L that is the new runway, but it still sounds like the slope is minimal. Not sure if you have used that runway on another trip but it's also unique in that if you are starting the take-off roll from the threshold of 28L, about 100 yards up you would cross over US1. I know there are several places where taxiways cross over roads, but I don't recall having seen another place in the US where a major thoroughfare crosses under an actual runway.

I've never used that runway and I wasn't aware that it crossed a road. I had to go look at the 20-9 page (taxi chart) to confirm it. I've never heard of a runway crossing a road. Plenty of taxiways, but no runways.

Didn't the old Denver airport have a runway that went right over the freeway?

Google brought me here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/tr...main-road.html

Pretty amazing!

Check out this runway in Gisborne, New Zealand that has a train crossing:
http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/08...h-railway.html

Haven't been there yet but I'd like to go some time.

There's the new runway 10-28 in Atlanta, which crosses over I-285:
http://www.parsons.com/Media%20Libra...5th_Runway.pdf

7L/25R and 7R/25L at LAX go right over CA-1/Sepulveda Blvd.