Just started reading Chris Kraft's autobiography, Flight. For those that don't know, he was one of the flight controllers during Apollo.
Early in his career, he was an engineer on experimental aircraft like the X1. One of the interesting things he mentions is when they discovered that thinner wings were actually better at very high speed. (They'd figured they would have to build even more robust wings to stand up to the pressures).
That got me to thinking about revolutions in flight. I"m sure computerizing the cockpit was a significant change, for example.
W0X0F, do you foresee any major revolutions in flight coming up? I don't mean to limit this to engineering, that's just what triggered my question.
Thinner wings and high speeds do lead to stability issues, though, especially inertia coupling during maneuvers.
Speaking of which, sorry to blow my own horn, but for those interested in aviation history, I just had an article published in Air Power History magazine. It's about two pioneer aviators from Purdue, one of whom was on the first around-the-world flight and was later commander of the Army Air Corps component at Hawaii during Pearl Harbor, and one of whom was a Pearl Harbor hero, WWII ace, and later a test pilot who lost his life to inertia coupling. If you'd like to read it, you can find it on pages 27-34 here.
Just started reading Chris Kraft's autobiography, Flight. For those that don't know, he was one of the flight controllers during Apollo.
Early in his career, he was an engineer on experimental aircraft like the X1. One of the interesting things he mentions is when they discovered that thinner wings were actually better at very high speed. (They'd figured they would have to build even more robust wings to stand up to the pressures).
That got me to thinking about revolutions in flight. I"m sure computerizing the cockpit was a significant change, for example.
W0X0F, do you foresee any major revolutions in flight coming up? I don't mean to limit this to engineering, that's just what triggered my question.
I see cockpits going from two pilots to one. Eventually from one pilot to zero. This is not a good development for pilots or for the middle class.
Just started reading Chris Kraft's autobiography, Flight. For those that don't know, he was one of the flight controllers during Apollo.
Early in his career, he was an engineer on experimental aircraft like the X1. One of the interesting things he mentions is when they discovered that thinner wings were actually better at very high speed. (They'd figured they would have to build even more robust wings to stand up to the pressures).
That got me to thinking about revolutions in flight. I"m sure computerizing the cockpit was a significant change, for example.
W0X0F, do you foresee any major revolutions in flight coming up? I don't mean to limit this to engineering, that's just what triggered my question.
I don’t have any particular insight into this. I’ve seen lots of advances and improvements with regard to safety since I started flying. When I started, we still used the “basic six” instruments (airspeed indicator, artificial horizon, altimeter, turn and bank indicator, directional gyro, VSI) and instrument flying stressed the scan of these instruments. Navigation was mainly land based navaids (VOR, NDB, ILS) though the big boys had inertial navigation for long distance flying.
I saw the advent of glass cockpits, incorporating multiple instruments in one display and using digital vs. analog presentations. For navigation, I saw LORAN making its brief foray into the cockpit (in the GA world) and INS become commonplace even in domestic airline use, only to be ultimately replaced by GPS.
In the safety world, the advent of TCAS in the early 90s was a game changer, though not without some growing pains, and some pushback from old-timers who were suspicious of the claims made for it. GPWS was the next big safety enhancement and the current EGPWS provides a great extra level of safety when operating near terrain.
Aircraft warning systems in general, notably takeoff configuration warning systems, have probably prevented untold numbers of accidents. EICAS provides crew warnings on every essential system on the plane, no longer just relying on the crew to monitor instruments.
Reducing the crew to one person is not something I’m sanguine about, but I admit that could be an “old guy” thing. After all, cockpits used to have three and four crew members: two pilots, a flight engineer, and maybe even a dedicated navigator for trans-oceanic flights. There was great resistance in the 60s to the idea of having only two pilots with no support crew. When I started at Delta 20 years ago, they had three aircraft types with three crew members: B727, L1011, and MD11.
There was good reason for that third crew member. When I was a flight engineer on the 727, if we needed to climb to avoid weather, the Captain would turn to me to ask how high we could go. I would have to consult books of performance charts to see what the plane could do with its current weight and the ambient temperature. That information is now available from the FMS at the touch of a button. Other functions of the flight engineer, such as checking the electrical system, putting generators on line, reconfiguring in case of a generator failure, etc, are now done automatically by modern aircraft systems. So technical advances made the flight engineer redundant.
Personally, I would be reluctant to get on a plane with only one pilot, knowing how human beings find ways screw things up. I’ve seen the crew concept catch and prevent errors on almost every flight, whether it’s a missed checklist item, an incorrect readback on an altitude assignment, or lack of compliance with a clearance. One of my favorite sayings is “It’s not a mistake unless we both make it.”
With all the talk of self-driving cars, can a self-flying plane be far behind? In some ways, the self-flying plane might be the easier of the two from the standpoint of the technical challenges. After all, planes already fly on autopilot a large percentage of the time. The routes, the approaches, and the number of participating aircraft are already closely managed and monitored. And with drone technology, it would be conceivable to even let a ground-based pilot step in if necessary in some sort of abnormal situation. But I kind of like the fact that the pilots of the plane have some skin in the game, literally.
Thinner wings and high speeds do lead to stability issues, though, especially inertia coupling during maneuvers.
Speaking of which, sorry to blow my own horn, but for those interested in aviation history, I just had an article published in Air Power History magazine. It's about two pioneer aviators from Purdue, one of whom was on the first around-the-world flight and was later commander of the Army Air Corps component at Hawaii during Pearl Harbor, and one of whom was a Pearl Harbor hero, WWII ace, and later a test pilot who lost his life to inertia coupling. If you'd like to read it, you can find it on pages 27-34 here.
I read the article and loved it! I shared it with my father (naval aviator, USNA ’50) who also enjoyed it. Having lived in Hawaii for two years, I was familiar with much of that history and I’ve flown the route that the initial attack came from, but I learned a lot from you in that piece. Thanks for posting the link.
Thank you for your kind words. It was a lot of fun to research and write. Very different than my usual historical research. I liked working with the newspaper archives, and having them digitized and keyword searchable is a real game changer for historical research.
Thinner wings and high speeds do lead to stability issues, though, especially inertia coupling during maneuvers.
Speaking of which, sorry to blow my own horn, but for those interested in aviation history, I just had an article published in Air Power History magazine. It's about two pioneer aviators from Purdue, one of whom was on the first around-the-world flight and was later commander of the Army Air Corps component at Hawaii during Pearl Harbor, and one of whom was a Pearl Harbor hero, WWII ace, and later a test pilot who lost his life to inertia coupling. If you'd like to read it, you can find it on pages 27-34 here.
Garick,
you should build wikipedia pages for both Major General Frederick L. Martin and Second Lieutenant George S. Welch. you've obviously done the research and their efforts should be memorialized.
a quick search didn't find anything meaningful for either of them.
On takeoff and landing, the flight crew tells the passengers to raise the window blinds. Why?
These kind of directives vary from one carrier to another, which puzzles me. It seems like this would be consistent if done for safety. The point of this one is to allow assessment of the outside if an emergency evacuation is necessary. You wouldn’t want to evacuate into a burning engine, for example.
btw, this is not one I’ve heard at Delta for routine landings. However, if I’ve briefed the FAs that an evacuation is possible, they would enforce this.
Last edited by W0X0F; 04-12-2020 at 01:17 PM.
Reason: Added last paragraph
I always pack my own "airplane" little liquor bottles in a clear bag in my carryon. My gf always freaks out saying im going to get caught, get in trouble, etc.
What would happen if one of the stewardess's did catch me drinking/making my own drinks?
I always pack my own "airplane" little liquor bottles in a clear bag in my carryon. My gf always freaks out saying im going to get caught, get in trouble, etc.
What would happen if one of the stewardess's did catch me drinking/making my own drinks?
I think that, technically, you’re not allowed to bring alcohol on the flight, so it might be confiscated. It’s going to depend on the particular FA and what kind of passenger you’ve been to that point. I think a lot of them would let it go. Unless you’ve been a major league PITA, it wouldn’t rise to the level of law enforcement if that’s what your gf is worried about.
These kind of directives vary from one carrier to another, which puzzles me. It seems like this would be consistent if done for safety. The point of this one is to allow assessment of the outside if an emergency evacuation is necessary. You wouldn’t want to evacuate into a burning engine, for example.
btw, this is not one I’ve heard at Delta for routine landings. However, if I’ve briefed the FAs that an evacuation is possible, they would enforce this.
I agree if for safety, it should be consistent, didn't realize it was carrier-based.
I was thinking it can only serve to raise passenger fears if it looks like something is in the process of going wrong. Didn't think of your example. We wouldn't want to rely on passengers to lift them after an emergency's been declared.
I got this link in an email, asking why left and right seats are so different.
Good info in the thread if anyone's interested.
I like that in the first answer, the person mentions that American's simulator has the acronym FFS. I guess if there's a place for the pilot to use FFS, it's in the simulator.
I also like the analogy to driving a stick in GBR. Specifically why I went automatic in Ireland; both my vehicles here are manual, but I figured it was one less thing to worry about in a new environment, driving on the left, etc.
W0X0F, did you transition from right to left at some point? I kind of figured that was the normal progression. Is it the case where a Captain could be FO on a flight (but not the reverse), or is it one seat or the other?
If you are forced to squawk 7600 due to a radio failure, what is the procedure from that point forward? Is it expected that you will divert to the nearest airport with a long enough runway and ATC will clear the way for you? Does your airline try to communicate with you through ACARS or other means?
In some movie about the Apollo program, I remember a scene where the sim controllers were throwing some incredibly unlikely scenario at them to see if they could work it.
I'm assuming that part of sim testing is emergency situations. Do you train for "more common" emergencies, or might the tester throw some really unlikely scenarios in there once in a while?
Have examples of some of the emergency tests you might simulate?
I got this link in an email, asking why left and right seats are so different.
Good info in the thread if anyone's interested.
I like that in the first answer, the person mentions that American's simulator has the acronym FFS. I guess if there's a place for the pilot to use FFS, it's in the simulator.
I also like the analogy to driving a stick in GBR. Specifically why I went automatic in Ireland; both my vehicles here are manual, but I figured it was one less thing to worry about in a new environment, driving on the left, etc.
W0X0F, did you transition from right to left at some point? I kind of figured that was the normal progression. Is it the case where a Captain could be FO on a flight (but not the reverse), or is it one seat or the other?
The transition from right to left occurs at the first upgrade you make from FO to Captain. There have been cases (and I think, iirc, that this occurred at ACA when I worked there) where a pilot could get an upgrade but, being a junior Captain, could still be assigned to a particular flight as a First Officer, if needed. So in this case, you'd have two four-stripers flying together but one is designated as the PIC and the other "captain" performs FO duties and sits in the right seat.
The Captain sits on the left; the FO sits on the right. That's how it's been since the first days of the airline industry. The only real difference on the planes I fly is that the left side has the steering tiller, used for taxiing. But I think some airlines have both sides equipped with a tiller, at least on some models. It's an option offered by some manufacturers that most airlines decide is not worth the extra money. Even without a tiller, the FO has steering capability using the rudder pedals which provide direct linkage to nosewheel steering, but is limited to around 7º left or right. This is enough steering authority to exit the runway on a highspeed exit after landing, but not enough to make a 90º turn. It also lets me turn over taxi duties to the FO if I need to, for example, adjust my seat or put on my shoulder harness.
There is obviously a different perspective from the left or right seat, and the Captain will be using his right hand on the throttles, whereas the FO will use his left hand. IOE check airmen are used to switching back and forth between seats, depending on who they are giving IOE. But for general line flying the Captain and FO always remain in their designated seats no matter whose leg it is.
I had two occasions, when I was an FO at my previous airline, where the Captain invited me to occupy the left seat for a flight. In both cases, we had no passengers. This was technically a big no-no and we made sure that the Captain was in the left seat in the gate area (where other people could see). We simply stopped on the taxiway to trade seats. I don't know if this is even an actual violation of a regulation, but it would definitely be frowned upon.
This guy is amusing. There's another one where he breaks down a video game F-18 mission.
I finally got around to watching this video. I concurred with CW on most of these things, but I do have some comments on some of his comments.
NAPPING
CW makes it sounds like this never happens. It doesn't happen a lot, but the job involves a lot of schedule variance (pre-dawn flights, flights arriving close to midnight, red-eye flights) and managing sleep can be difficult.
I do a lot of transcon flights and a fair number of red-eyes from the west coast to JFK. I make it a part of my standard briefing that, if fatigue becomes an issue during flight, I'd much rather have the other guy tell me that he needs to close his eyes for a few minutes than look over and find him nodding off. I actually think it's better for the safety of my flight to have a pilot take a cat nap rather than fight it and be sub-par during a night approach in weather.
MEALS
CW referred to the crews getting the same meals as First Class passengers and maybe that's the practice where he works. At Delta, we only get an in-flight meal for flights blocked at 5:30 or greater. Thus, we get a meal going from JFK to LAX, but we might not get one for the return trip.
Quite often, even on flights under 5:30 block, the FAs will offer us something from the back, even if it's just items from the snack basket (chips and a banana). If they have leftover meals, they might offer us those. Much of this depends upon the rapport we establish with the cabin crew. I usually get treated very well because I make a point of being very friendly with my cabin crew.
LAV BREAKS
CW made a comment that I had to go back and listen to again, to make sure I heard it right. He said that when the pilot goes out to the lav, a flight attendant takes the pilot seat in the cockpit. While it is required to have a second person in the cockpit when a pilot goes back to the lav, that person is not required to occupy the empty pilot seat and, in fact, that it not usually the case (though, again, perhaps for his airline it is). On the 757/767, the FA who comes up usually just sits on the jumpseat.
DEHYDRATION
I only comment on this one because CW makes it sound like it's universal that the pilots are each given a liter of water for each flight. I find that the typical scenario is that the lead FA asks us if we want anything or if we need some bottles of water. I often get a half dozen small water bottles and store them in the storage space to my left. Many guys get a soda or a cup of coffee. Most cockpits keep a supply of water bottles up front.
AUTOPILOT
Somewhere in that discussion was a mention of pilots engaging the autopilot within "seconds" after takeoff. At least at Delta, the lowest altitude for A/P engagement is 400' agl, but I don't think I've ever seen it engaged this low. Most pilots I fly with will hand fly to at least 7000-10000' before turning on the A/P. My usual practice is to take it up to at least 18000', which is the point where we switch our altimeters to the standard setting of 29.92" and perform the climb checklist. On rare occasions, I hand fly all the way up to cruise altitude.
The only time I ever engage the autopilot below 10000' is during high workload. As CW mentioned, hand flying increases the workload for the non-flying pilot. If ATC is issuing lots of heading and altitude changes, or if the Standard Instrument Departure (SID) is extremely demanding and has penalties for deviations (some foreign countries will levy heavy fines for not being in strict compliance), or if some abnormal occurs (e.g. a generator trips offline), I'll engage the autopilot so that we can better manage the situation. It's a tool to reduce workload and increase safety.
Having said all that, I have occasionally been stunned by how soon some young regional pilots turn on the autopilot. I jumpseat a lot and I've seen guys who go on autopilot below 1000' during good weather and low workload.
READING IN THE COCKPIT
As CW admits, pilots will read stuff during low workload periods. The official word is that we can read "company" material, i.e. company newsletters, safety reports, systems and operational manuals. My briefing on this topic is that I don't care what guys do at cruise altitude as long as the flight is being properly monitored.
Flying across the country can get boring and I often have a few KenKens in my flight which I'll pull out at cruise altitude to keep my brain engaged. The main diversion is good conversation.
BUYING A TICKET ON ONE AIRLINE; FLYING ON ANOTHER
CW talks about regional carriers "doing business as" the major airline affiliate. While this is true, there is another possibility when discussing this topic and that is codeshare. Many airlines have formed "alliances" which means you can buy a ticket that you think is Delta Air Lines and then find yourself on an Air France or KLM flight.
SECRET CHIMES/CODES
During the discussion of various chimes to signify different things, there was a mention of "Code Bravo." I've never heard of this. It's not a thing.
As far as using the chimes, this will vary from one airline to the next. One of our regional partners that I jumpseat on (Endeavor? Republic?) rings the chime on short final, perhaps when cleared to land, or maybe at 1000' agl. I'm not sure.
At Delta, we do a double ding climbing through 10,000' agl then again descending through 10,000' agl. This is simply an indication of sterile cockpit for the FAs. When we're below 10,000 agl, FAs are not supposed to contact us for anything except safety of flight issues.
REST FACILITIES
During this discussion, CW never mentioned that crew rest facilities are only available on flights in excess of eight hours, which requires augmented crews.
If you are forced to squawk 7600 due to a radio failure, what is the procedure from that point forward? Is it expected that you will divert to the nearest airport with a long enough runway and ATC will clear the way for you? Does your airline try to communicate with you through ACARS or other means?
I've never had to squawk 7600. Complete loss of radio communication ability would be extremely rare. ATC would probably assume at first that the crew missed a frequency change and they'd ask another company flight to get the company to try to contact the crew via ACARS with a correct frequency. This kind of thing does happen occasionally.
The AIM actually seems written more for GA aircraft, because the first part of this section says
Quote:
If the failure occurs in VFR conditions, or if VFR conditions are encountered after the failure, each pilot must continue the flight under VFR and land as soon as practicable.
Hard to imagine diverting to a suitable field and then expecting to get a signal from a light gun in the tower for clearance to land.
The procedure for proceeding IFR gets much more complicated because of the need to maintain altitude until commencing an approach. Theoretically, that 7600 squawk alerts ATC and they will provide separation in the airspace for your arrival and approach. So you fly the route you've been cleared on and, after arriving at the initial approach fix, descend to the initial approach altitude and shoot the approach, looking for a light gun signal from the tower for "cleared to land." Or something like that.
I've never had to squawk 7600. Complete loss of radio communication ability would be extremely rare. ATC would probably assume at first that the crew missed a frequency change and they'd ask another company flight to get the company to try to contact the crew via ACARS with a correct frequency. This kind of thing does happen occasionally.
The AIM actually seems written more for GA aircraft, because the first part of this section says
Hard to imagine diverting to a suitable field and then expecting to get a signal from a light gun in the tower for clearance to land.
The procedure for proceeding IFR gets much more complicated because of the need to maintain altitude until commencing an approach. Theoretically, that 7600 squawk alerts ATC and they will provide separation in the airspace for your arrival and approach. So you fly the route you've been cleared on and, after arriving at the initial approach fix, descend to the initial approach altitude and shoot the approach, looking for a light gun signal from the tower for "cleared to land." Or something like that.
Thanks.
The thought of not being able to interact with ATC seems scary, especially under IFR.
