Some runways are way longer than needed for a given plane. Here in Kosice the runway is 10000 ft but the planes are mostly A320s, which need less than half of that. Some larger planes would need it all though.

I think when it was originally built the military advantages of having redundant runway length would have been a factor (a MiG29 needs about a 6th of that to operate so good luck taking the whole length out of action) too so that may also be a consideration if you are outside north America.

1) Do planes take on fuel at every stop? Seems as if you'd want (as close to) a full tank as possible all the time, just in case.

2) Do different airports have different fuel prices, like gas stations, or is it pretty uniform?

Fuel you don't need is extra weight. Extra weight equals extra $$$ to get the plane where it's going.

We do use paper checklists, but we don't actually manually check off the items as we do them. Many of the checklist are challenge/response checklists, where one crew member reads the first part and the other pilot gives the appropriate response. Using a checklist on a tablet doesn't seem to provide any added benefit and the idea of actually marking items completed might sound good to you but it would be pretty cumbersome in practice imo.

The Airbus has some checklists which will come up on the EICAS screen (Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System), but I think this is just emergency and abnormal checklists. For example, if they have a generator failure, the steps required to address this abnormal situation will automatically appear on the EICAS.

You probably are looking at aircraft on approach to the same runway, but your untrained eye is better at judging distances between aircraft instead of time between aircraft. About the closest we get to the airplane landing in front of us is three miles and that's not the norm. Approach speeds are probably going to be in the range of 130-150 mph depending on aircraft size and weight, which means about the fastest we're going is 2.5 miles per minute. So obviously we have more than 30 seconds of separation.

When I'm making a visual approach and ATC tells me to "maintain visual separation" with the aircraft in front of us, I use the relative altitude of the that aircraft as a pretty good "howgozit" indicator. (Note: I can read relative altitude on the TCAS display.) If that plane is going down the glideslope in front of us and we're maintaining 800' or more above its altitude, then I know from experience that we have adequate separation for that plane to land and clear the runway before I touch down. A normal descent rate on the glideslope is right around 700 fpm (varies depending on our groundspeed which is a function of our approach speed and the relative wind), so we would be almost a full minute behind that plane even when we're making a close approach.

It's not so much what I consider to be a big change, it's really what a passenger would perceive as a big change. Ideally, I would like you to not be able to tell we're even landing unless you happened to be looking out the window. This means I try to avoid large pitch changes (i.e. the nose of the airplane going sharply up or down) and I also make no excessive power changes.

As for the banking right after takeoff, that can also usually be done in a smooth manner so that it won't cause anxiety to passengers. When I was a check airman at ACA, I would occasionally get a new hire who was a little abrupt on the controls and that would be definitely be a point of emphasis during training.

I was also a little confused by that report and I'm not at all sure what, if anything, was done by Airbus to address that issue. I really wish I could shed more light on this particular topic, but I've got admit to being a bit mystified myself.

This is exactly how the flight attendants are trained. The idea is that they have to continuously shout and repeat these instructions to get through to passengers who are in a very high stress situation and probably won't respond to anything but a very authoritative delivery of the simple instructions that might save their lives.

Yeah people really suck in crisis. My ex was an FA and I was shocked at how much crash training they did

Of course, it makes sense now that I think about it. And in spite of this, many people STILL didn't follow the instructions.

It's also really interesting to me how the front/middle of the plane and the back of the plane were two different worlds after touchdown. It's logical, of course, but the difference is greater than I would've imagined.

And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9!

(Still statistically insignificant, but it's an interesting flight!)

That's extremely rare, and it better be. I can't recall any time as an airline pilot where I came close to running out of runway. Now that's not to say that I haven't planned for the constraints of a short runway, especially if the braking action is reported as less than "Good" due to snow or sleet.

When I'm briefing an approach to a short runway, I emphasize the importance of landing as close to the target touchdown spot (1000' from the threshold) as possible. I also make sure to not carry any extra speed as this will significantly increase the distance needed for bringing the plane to a stop.

In the plane I'm currently flying (MD-88), one of the primary considerations for not using excessive runway is making sure that the spoilers deploy after the wheels touch down. This puts more weight on the main landing gear (by destroying the lift of the wings) and thus aids in effective braking.

Spoiler deployment occurs automatically as a function of "weight on wheels," and it's the non-flying pilot's duty to ensure that they've actually deployed and to call it out. If the automatic deployment doesn't work, we manually deploy the spoilers but that second or two required to see that they haven't come up, and then to pull the spoiler handle, will result in extra distance chewed up on the landing roll. In the few cases I can recall of an MD-88 going off a runway, lack of spoiler deployment has been a contributing factor.

The four things we brief as a reason for aborting a takeoff after 80 knots (and prior to V1) are "fire, failure, shear or fear." It makes for a catchy phrase and translates to: (1) engine fire, (2) engine failure, (3) windshear, and (4) judgment by the pilot that the plane either won't get airborne or will be unmanageable once it does get airborne.

The first two of these are pretty apparent. If an engine fire occurs it will be unmistakable. There will be a fire bell, a few red lights illuminating (the red Master Warning light in on each pilot's glareshield, a red FIRE light on the Overhead Annunciator Panel, and the red fire extinguisher turn-and-pull handle for the respective engine) and an aural warning "FIRE, LEFT ENGINE."

If an engine failure occurs, it will first be noticeable by the airplane yawing from the centerline due to asymmetric thrust and then soon followed by some yellow caution lights and annunciation as the generator for that engine spins down and goes offline.

Windshear identification can be trickier, depending on where in the takeoff roll it occurs. Some airplanes have windshear warning systems, but these are inhibited above 80 knots until after becoming airborne. So after 80 knots, it is up to the pilots to notice fluctuations in the airspeed indicator that indicate windshear (the worst of these would be airspeed stagnation where we continue down the runway but the airspeed stops increasing; remember: we need a certain airspeed to fly). The good news is that windshear doesn't just pop up completely unannounced. There is usually weather conducive to windshear in the vicinity that puts the pilots on their toes concerning this threat and therefore we brief it before takeoff and we're looking for these indicators.

That brings me to #4: the "fear" part of the abort briefing. This, again, is going to mainly be pilot judgment. We just know what a normally accelerating airplane feels like and typically the airspeed increases at a nice pace. If we get the "bad feeling" you mention, we can abort the takeoff just based on that. I can't remember ever doing this.

Another possible "fear" would be if for some reason we discerned that the flight controls (aileron, elevator and/or rudder) were not operating normally. This could make the plane unmanageable after becoming airborne. We do flight control checks to ensure free and proper movement of all the flight controls during the taxi check, so it shouldn't be something that comes up during the takeoff roll.

Outside of the simulator, I have never aborted a takeoff roll above 80 knots, so I've never experienced (in real life, that is) any of the "fire, failure, shear or fear" reasons for aborting a takeoff. I've had each of the first three every time I go to recurrent training.

I've aborted takeoffs during the slow speed phase (below 80 knots) probably fewer than a dozen times over my years as an airline pilot and it's usually due to an engine indication problem (e.g. all of the left engine instruments just decide to blank out after initiating the takeoff roll).

If you're at an airport with a longer than normal runway, like 12,000 feet or so, do you raise your V1 number?

First, thanks again for this very interesting discussion, and the effort you're putting into it.

This discussion of total power loss intrigues me. While you say the plane won't nose-dive like in the movies, how far do you have to find a place to put down? Would you pretty much have to be at the airport, or could you sail a ways?

I assume this is significantly different for different types of aircraft as well?

1. UFOs?

Go back and read the fourth paragraph in my response in Post #7492. I glided 90 miles with no engines running.

Something similar happened in real life and it involved gliding many miles in an Airbus to land on an island (Air Transat Flight 236).

GTFO

I missed that first time around. So in that simulation you lost about 7.5% of a unit of height for each unit of distance forward - and at more than 6 miles high you could land 90 miles away so it's nothing like a nose-dive.

Exactly. Every airplane has a characteristic glide ratio. The U-2 spy plane had a glide ratio of about 23:1, which means that if it lost its engine while cruising at 70,000' it could glide about 305 miles.

W0X0F, I don't know if I missed the update, but are you flying again?

I sent in the results of my last CT scan in September and I've been waiting since then to hear. I finally talked to someone in Oklahoma City (FAA HQ) last week and was told they have everything they need. It's now just a matter of having it reviewed by their medical board and I can't seem to get any indication on how long that might take. Maybe I'll get a "Christmas miracle."

This is the longest I've gone without flying since I was 21. But I still remember how to do it (pull back, houses get smaller; push forward, houses get bigger).

That makes it seem so easy, like anyone could do it.

Just wanted to report back that I survived my trip!

But seriously, I asked whether I could meet the pilots on the flight out and just doing that helped put my mind at ease. Well, that and the Xanax I took. I think I'm starting to feel a little more comfortable with flying - I even fell asleep for a short time on the flight home! I consider that progress.

When the flight attendant says cleared for departure is that something the pilot tells them first? Or do they just say it when they reach a certain distant from the gate/to the runway?

On all the airlines I'm familiar with, one of the pilots makes a PA announcing the imminent departure and advising the flight attendants to "prepare for takeoff." If the airline you were on didn't have a PA from the pilots, then they almost certainly advised the FA via the intercom.

Would you ever abort a landing if, for example, you see you are going to overshoot the touchdown spot by a lot? Or are you basically commited to putting the plane on the ground after decision height or what ever it's called?

You mention automatic spoiker deployment. It is my understanding that modern airliners also have a system for automatic braking? I guess this works by the same principle of weight on wheels? Do you always use automatic braking?

Yes, that would definitely be a valid reason to go around. In fact, when landing on a short runway I will brief this as a trigger for a go around.

The use of autobrakes is not mandatory, at least on my fleet. Some pilots always use them and some (mostly old timers who have flown this plane for over ten years) only use them if braking action is reported as less than good. My personal default is to use them unless I know I'm going to want to roll way down the runway before exiting. In this case, I can just let the plane slow gradually to taxi speed. When landing on runway 12 in Miami or 13R at JFK, a long rollout puts us very close to our parking area.

I had not heard about this incident until recently. It must surely be among the most amazing experiences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOcm6E10anI