I was on BA219 on 11/28, the site you linked won't let me go back that far.

But FlightAware will. Still seems much more northern than normal.

Probably to avoid some weather or unfavorable jet stream. Also, remember that with a Mercator projection, the further you get from the equator the more distances are distorted. What looks like a big change to the north is much less in actuality.

I once said goodby to all the deplaning passengers while wearing a pink tiara, a pink tutu, and pink lipstick.

Would be far more intriguing if you had written, "wearing only a pink ..."

I thought for sure we'd get a Good Will Hunting joke.

Well that's better than greeting them that way

I remember asking a pilot this way back when prefaced with it was a straight stretch of water on a calm day. He replied well it was never done before.
I saw Sully speak at a conference and he came off as an arrogant ******* but I guess that does not detract from his piloting skills

W0X0F - curious about your opinion on airlines asking to have a single pilot in the cockpit?
i haven't dug into it deep enough to understand what type of flights are being proposed, but it raises an eyebrow

I was ticketed on a connecting flight from St Louis to Jefferson City MO on Trans-Mo Airlines (no joke). I get to their counter and its a kiosk in the hallway, and was told the flight I was booked on no longer exists but there is one seat available on the next flight in an hour. It's the co-pilots seat. Of course I jumped on that offer. The pilot was also the baggage handler. This had to be around 1979.

air-taxi in the late 60s.
i'm curious about the nature of the regional economy that prompted flights between those cities at that time
i can guess what drives it these day

Not a good idea, imo, and if this is ever adopted it will signal the end of my days as a passenger on airlines. Air taxi operators can safely use one pilot largely because they use smaller, simpler equipment (e.g. 6-passenger, twin Cessna) flying short hops (e.g. Boston to Martha’s Vineyard). Even there, having a second pilot would enhance safety but it fails the “benefit/cost” analysis, I suppose.

If single pilot airline ops is ever adopted, stand by for an increase in incident/accident stats. Most accidents result from an “error chain”, a series of errors/miscommunications/lapses of judgment. Having a second pilot greatly increases the chances of breaking that chain.

Any times during your career where the co-pilot averted a problem? Anything major?

It does seem dangerous not to have the "second set of eyes" there.

W0X0F,

I just took a flight that got delayed during taxi due to a maintenance issue and I suspect the pilot was FOS with his initial estimate saying "we hope to be moving again in a few minutes." I'm not sure exactly what the issue was but it seemed to be one of what I assume are the many startup computer checks on an Airbus that fixes itself when you restart (having flown lots of excessively computerized aircraft I'm familiar with that class of glitches). It took like 15 minutes to call maintenance and another 15 minutes to restart and almost 30 minutes to get the paperwork signed off.

Does that seem excessive? I thought in particular they could have had the paperwork prepared while the restart was happening if they were pretty confident that would clear things. The plane was already delayed 2 hours from the gate on a flight that was originally scheduled to land after midnight and it just felt like there was no sense of urgency. And if the most basic maintenance function is going to cause an hour delay why tell the passengers you might be moving again in a few minutes?

This was AAL so feel free to rip.

Not sure what it's called, but your screen name is a plane's designation, right? I assume that there's some pattern to them; could W0X0F be a legit designation?

I searched for this a while back because I was interested. Here is what I found:

"On an airport surface observation, "zero-zero" conditions were designated by the alphanumeric coding "W0X0F" (indefinite ceiling, zero; sky obscured; visibility, zero; fog). How are the same conditions designated in the new METAR report?"

I can't think of anything major, but I'm sure I've been prompted for a checklist here or there. A lot of what we do routinely is part of an expected cadence of events. For example, as I trundle down the runway for takeoff, the FO calls out "Vee-one, rotate" as we accelerate to V1. Then after takeoff, she will call "Positive rate" (meaning we're climbing away from terra firma) which prompts my response of "Wheels up'"

If something happens to distract the FO from calling "Positive rate" it would be easy to miss the call for "Wheels up." What could distract the FO? Perhaps a flock of birds in the vicinity got our attention and I'm maneuvering to avoid them. Or perhaps one of the engines has an excessive EGT that the FO notices and calls my attention to it. These things take us out of our natural rhythm.

So let's say that this happened. Where is it caught? By running checklists.

The choreography of "Positive rate", "Wheels up" is part of the takeoff profile, in which the sequence of events is laid out. The last part of the departure profile comes when the plane accelerates and the flying pilot calls for the flaps to be fully retracted. This is the trigger for calling for the "After Takeoff" checklist and it comes out as one statement: "Flaps up. After takeoff checklist." Similarly, on the approach profile, the last call from the flying pilot is to select the final flap setting and that comes out as "Flaps 30, Landing checklist."

We all train with the same choreography of expected responses and triggers in the flight profiles. But anytime humans are involved, errors and omissions can creep in. So over the years, warning systems have been incorporated to supply yet another layer of safety.

Consider the flap setting we use for takeoff. There are 3 places prior to takeoff where this gets set and verified. The first is leaving the gate area. Once the ground crew has disconnected and shown the Captain the gear pin (which was in the main gear to bypass the hydraulic system, allowing the ground crew tug driver to maneuver the plane), the Captain will say something like "I've got a salute and a pin. Set flaps 15. Call for taxi."

During the taxi to the runway, the Captain calls for the Taxi checklist (usually when exiting the ramp area) which will have the non-flying pilot confirm the flap setting, among other things. Flaps are checked once again in the Before Takeoff checklist. If somehow, someway, both pilots "see" what they want to see and still have not actually put the flaps down, there is a warning system called TOCWS (Take Off Configuration Warning System) which will sound a loud aural alert if the flaps are not in a valid takeoff setting when the power levers are advanced for takeoff. If this should occur, the response is NOT to reach down and select takeoff flaps. The correct response to this would be an immediate call of "ABORT, ABORT" and reduction of the power, followed by exiting the runway and dealing with the situation.

Okay, I've gotten very long-winded again...and probably didn't really answer your question. I can think of plenty of times I've been backed up by the other pilot and I was glad for the second set of eyes.

Now, I'll leave you with this:

W0X0F is an abbreviation that used to appear in the weather briefings we got. Even small airports had a teletype somewhere that would spit out the hourly weather observations of local airports. Because it was a 10 character per second teletype, liberal use of abbreviations were necessary.

WOXOF translates as:

W - Indefinite ceiling
0 - zero foot ceiling
X - sky obscured
0 - zero feet visibility
F - Fog

The opposite of W0X0F is CAVU, which means "Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited"

Around 1995, ICAO adopted universal international abbreviations for weather reports and W0X0F was no more. So fewer and fewer pilots these days know the term.

Saw a bit of a TV show recently where they were at Gibraltar's airport. There's a motor vehicle road which crosses the runway. They were talking about the logistics of stopping traffic when a plane's coming, as well as keeping it clean so the jet's engines don't suck up any debris. Pretty interesting.

I remember you mentioning St. Maarten. Any other non-standard airports you've flown into/out of?

Also, about McCarran being re-named to Harry Reid. Doesn't apply there, as the code is LAS either way; but, if they ever decided to rename JFK/LGA/ORD/whatever whose code goes with the name, would they invent a new code? I'm guessing that would be a logistical nightmare, and newly-named "XYZ airport" would retain LGA (or whatever).

What do you think ORD stands for?

I figured it's some manipulation of O'Hare, but not sure why the D.

It was originally Orchard Field before the name change to O'Hare.

Ah! Well, that answers my question, thanks!

Wasn't Denver DIA at some point and now it's DEN?

No, DEN moved from Stapleton to Denver International when it opened and Stapleton closed. DIA is just what the locals call it because they seem to like confusion.

That's right. I flew in and out of Stapleton many times in my youth - divorced parents and my dad lived in Denver. Flew by myself several times between the ages of 8-15.