I did. Thank you!

I liked the stories about the VOR naming, especially as I'll be flying out of DEN Friday. I'll look for the dog.

Oddly enough, just before looking at 2p2, I was looking at New Orleans for some reason.

For GPWS, would it go off RED in somewhere that's in a mountain valley? I'm imagining some mountain town that's up in a high, tight valley. Where you might have to drop down into the valley, and there would be peaks all around. Can't think of a specific example, though.

Maybe San Diego, where it seems as if you fly through downtown buildings on descent.

I had to take a short flight from St Kitts to Barbados to meet my connection flight. The technology involved in avoiding incoming traffic was the pilot looking over his shoulder

Not even a side rear-view mirror?

Odd coincidence, when I went downstairs to have lunch, something called Most Extreme Airports was on the History Channel.

The segments I saw happened to be about St. Bart's and Tegucigalpa, Honduras.

St. Bart's looked horrible to fly into. Come over a mountain, descend dramatically. Short little runway which ends at the beach. If that's not enough, there's a road directly above the runway, so you have to miss whatever traffic might be there too.

The interviewee said it requires a special license.

On the plus side, once you're down, you're on what looks like a beautiful tropical isle. And if you overshoot the runway, at least you're on the beach.

Here's a video. Not from the show, some other guy.

I made it through the post and several tangents articles from the links. Thanks for a super interesting read.

Short note about the St Kitts flight, it involves flying at low level over beautiful blue seas with a couple of islands for distraction.
This beats flying from Heathrow to Manchester, in my opinion

Of course at some point the old Swedish vs Danish hostess issue will come up. Slightly torn on this one, Swedish girl who had lost all her clothes plying me me drink vs Danish girl who gave me a small packet of carrots because she was in a hurry to get home for her dinner was a closer match than you would think

W0X0F - you keep typing, we'll keep reading

you've shared almost a half-century of flight knowledge in this thread capturing a very interesting period of technological transition. there will be aviation historians in the mid-21st century who will read and cite your posts as part of their research.

A little bumpy coming into SDF the other day, and it got me to thinking.

Totally anecdotally, I perceive that descents are rougher than takeoffs.

What's your experience? If one is bumpier, any idea why?

Local news was discussing the current high cost of tickets and mentioned a pilot shortage made worse when a lot of pilots took early retirement due to COVID. Any idea how bad the shortage is or will be and for how long?

There are a few factors at play here. First of all, it is common to have some bumps below the cloud level. GA pilots are well aware of this since they spend a high percentage of their time at low altitudes (below 5000'). This is particularly noticeable on a hot summer day with some puffy cumulus clouds in a blue sky. Below the clouds, the air is more turbulent and one of the factors is uneven heating of the earth's surface causing up and down drafts. (One of the things causing the uneven heating is the color of the ground. Go from a dark green area, with vegetation, to a recently plowed farm area that is brown, and you'll definitely notice a difference.) As you climb out and reach the level of he clouds, the air becomes noticeably smoother. In my days flying turboprops, where we flew short hops and rarely got above 19000', we would often choose a cruise altitude above the clouds, if possible, just for a better ride.

Another reason is that when you are on approach, you are at a slower speed and the plane is more subject to the bumps. When we climb out, we accelerate to 250 kts (ATC permitting) for the climbout until reaching 10,000' and then continue accelerating. When in the approach phase, we will spend a good portion of that time at speeds below 200 kts and, once configured for landing, down to 130-150 kts.

Lastly, on the departure, we climb through those low altitudes quickly. From takeoff to passing 10,000' will usually be 5 minutes or less* (again, ATC permitting). When you're down low, in the approach phase, you can often be in that bumpier air for 10-20 minutes as ATC vectors you into the flow of traffic. That longer duration is going to make an impression on you.


[*I recall taking an empty MD-88 from BDL to DCA (we were just repositioning the plane for schedule integrity) and we passed 10,000' less than two minutes after liftoff. The Vertical Speed Indicator was pegged at 6000 fpm. Flying an empty plane was fun; I could yank and bank in ways that I never would with passengers on board.]

How much do you regret not having Fiona as your co-pilot?

VORs will still be with us for years to come, even though the system was predicted to die years ago This is mostly due to States becoming more and more paranoid regarding GPS jamming coupled with the fact that they are very dependable, cheap to buy and cheap to maintain. Many countries have decommissioned them, others are buying more.

Earlier in the thread there was a question about if a localizer is part of an ILS which you answered, please allow me to explain ILS for the good people of the thread.

W0X0F will, when on ILS approach, first pick up the DME (range of 66nm when collocated with an ILS), then the LOC at 25nm and finally the GS at 10nm. The LOC will give horizontal guidance down to centimeter accuracy, the GS will give a vertical profile down to the touchdown point. The idea and principle is that the aircraft lands on the centerline and at or near the threshold of that runway.

Each country/state/airport have their own procedures on when the ILS is supposed to be intercepted (or used). I can imagine in Vegas that they use it far out as the approach always seem very long there!

The ILS is generally rock solid and the only way for pilots to experience issues with it is basically ground interference or onboard equipment filtering issues. A typical ground interference issue will be that the ATC are holding aircraft too close to the LOC or GS, or aircraft are taxing inside the beam forming areas when another aircraft is on final. Most of the time the landing AC will do a go-around.

A go-around is by the way crazy expensive at some places during normal times. I doubt they care much in Covid times where everything is slow, but if a very busy hub experiences a go-around it will have implications. First, it will cause a delay for transiting passengers who have a tight layover. Passengers missing their connection will have to be put on other flights. Someone will have to pay for that. Second, it reduces the time the transit passengers can spend shopping in the terminal. So this is bad business for everyone.

The ILS' are checked every 6 months by flight inspection aircraft/crew. It is an ICAO/FAA requirement, but if you can demonstrate solidity over a huge sample rate you can extend beyond that by 3-6 months. They will fly a bunch of profiles to verify the specifications, that the ILS is still performing well. This inspection is of course very important as ILS is safety critical. We don't want people landing on the wrong runway or even worse.

I have not heard of any incidents where lives were lost due to ILS malfunctioning. They are heavily monitored and maintained, plus the 6 monthly flight calibration to validate.

Finally in todays lesson about landing systems; most airports have some sort of ILS. You can have an ILS without a glideslope, but not without a localizer. Today we also count a 3rd component, the marker beacon, most commonly a DME (distance measuring equipment) as part of the ILS. As it gets expensive to have humans working, you should be competent on all 3 components to work in this field today.

Sorry for the hijack W0X0F and everyone else, and the long read.

Kemo's post brought up a question. I'm assuming that DMC, LOC, and GS are sort of 'markers' for "you're on the right track to airport ABC."

What's the time difference to these pickups? 65 -> 25-> 10 nm sounds like a fair amount, but you're flying at speeds I'm not used to operating something. Is there enough time to react to something in-between, are they one right on top of another, or something different?

Some minor comments on Kemo's post...

The planned touchdown point (and the target of the GS) is a at the 1000' foot point. If on a standard 3 degree glideslope, the aircraft will cross the runway threshold at 50'. When flying in VMC conditions, especially to a shorter runway, it's not unusual for the flying pilot to announce "I'm visual, going below the glideslope" to let the other guy know that he's intentionally ducking below the glideslope to land before the 1000' point. Most pilots have an innate distaste for wasting runway; the sooner you get it on the ground, the shorter the rollout. It's important to announce that you're doing this, otherwise the non-flying pilot has an obligation to tell you that you're getting low on the GS. Also, the plane's GPWS might even bark "GLIDESLOPE!" at you. Ducking a little low was a common move in my Shuttle flying in the MD-88, going into 7000' runways at both LGA and DCA.

Most airports now have Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) which are RNAV routes that feed into the ILS. Once we are cleared for the approach, we can arm the Localizer to intercept, and once we've honored all of the altitude restrictions on the STAR we can arm the Glideslope.

This is why many airports have two separate "Hold Short" lines for runways. In VMC weather, aircraft routinely hold just short of the active runway until receiving clearance to takeoff or to taxi onto the runway. When the weather dictates using the ILS, there is a more restrictive hold short line so that aircraft don't interfere with the LOC or GS transmitter. (If I recall correctly, this is any time the weather is below 800' ceiling and 2 miles visibility.)

And don't believe that Die Hard movie (#2?) where they set the glideslope low so that airplanes crashed into the ground short of the runway. We don't just blindly follow that signal. We cross check our altitude continuously and we know that we should be 300' high for every mile out. So at 5 miles from the runway, we should be approximately 1500' above the ground. Also, we can cross check the published crossing altitude at the Outer Marker if that ILS is so equipped.

Marker beacons actually pre-date the use of DME. If we have DME, we can just continuously do our 300'/NM mental math. In the days before DME, when there was no way to tell how far out you were, you would check the published altitude when crossing the marker. And many airports had multiple markers, up to 3 of them, called the Outer Marker, Middle Marker, and Inner Marker. Most of those are going away now, probably due to their redundancy and cost of upkeep.

How did you know that you were crossing the marker? They each had a distinctive sound, only audible if you selected the "Marker" audio on your comm panel and turned up the volume. They also each had a distinctive colored, flashing light on one of your instrument displays (sometimes a special set of lights on the panel; other times incorporated into the Nav display).

When crossing the Outer Marker, you would hear a slowly, continuously repeating beeping sound and a flashing blue light. At the Middle Marker (if so equipped), you'd hear a higher pitched, slightly faster beeping and an amber flashing light. Finally, the Inner Marker (usually very close or right at decision height of 200') you'd hear a much higher pitched (kind of annoying) and very frequent continuous beeping along with a flashing white light. Pilots often reach down and select the Marker audio off to eliminate the incessant beeping. (Actually, tbh, most pilots these days don't ever monitor the marker beacons. I'm old school and almost always had them on.)


Thanks for the contribution Kemo!


They're nicely spaced and, as I mentioned above, the STAR usually feeds you right into the final approach course, intercepting the LOC. There are still some "full" approaches at smaller airports which don't presume RNAV capability. These will have an Initial Approach Fix (IAF) which you navigate to and then fly the published procedure. That procedure could involve a procedure turn (often a course reversal with timed legs on certain headings) to intercept the localizer. The procedure will include a minimum altitude for each leg of the approach and these are observed until intercepting the glideslope.

Any reputable UFO evidence in the industry?

On top of what W0X0F already said, they are frequency paired. If the pilot sets his receiver to channel 50X for instance for the DME, he is already on the right frequency for the LOC and GS. DME, LOC, GS are fixed wherever you land in the world.

LAX tower. 1961

Midair collision near Denver.

Thought this might be of interest to the thread.

Story

Cliffs: two small planes collided in midair near Denver at a smaller commuter-type airport. Fortunately, no fatalities/injuries.

Saw an aviation expert on the news last night say that only a few feet difference would've caused a significantly different outcome. If the smaller plane had not hit the green plane exactly where it did, green would've lost wings or tail and been out of control. Very fortunate there.

Amazing that no one was injured and they were able to land it.

Thanks Videopro. I meant to include a couple stills from the story, but got a phone call just when I was typing and got distracted.

Here's the other plane.



This was a model with a built-in parachute (didn't know there were such things on planes!) which helped them get down.

The Cirrus was the first (maybe only) production plane to incorporate a ballistic parachute designed for just such a scenario. I'm not sure if it's standard on the Cirrus or just an option. I always thought it was absurd and that it would never save someone. My thinking was that any kind of accident which rendered the plane completely uncontrollable would not be able to be used in such a catastrophic situation. Well, I was wrong. Those two guys are alive because of the parachute.

It could have been so much worse for the Metroliner. If the impact had been a little lower, the entire fuselage is broken in two. A little farther aft and the empennage would be destroyed. Farther forward and the wings are destroyed. Any of these situations would likely have been unrecoverable.

"Empennage". Had to look that one up.

As a pilot, how would you handle a situation like what happened over Belarus? Suppose you are nearing your destination, flying over another country when you are instructed to land, accompanied by a fighter jet. Who is your authority at that point? Does the country you are flying over get to dictate such commands?

I'm no pilot, but I think you do precisely what they tell you to do.

As an example, KAL 007 didn't, and that did not go well.