Hey WOXOF, I dont think I ever saw a reply to this, not sure if you just missed it. Speaking of flights originating from Brazil, what was up with those pilots that landed on the taxi way in ATL back in October? I never heard any update from the media

I believe WOXOF already addressed the issue of the landing on one of the taxiways.

As for the Gol loss, here is a very detailed article. Wonder what WOXOF thinks about it...

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2...ir_crash200901

I read that article and have listened to the audio, very interesting. I am just curious on any update

do you prefer to fly in clear skies with little wind because its easier and less stressful or do you prefer IFR minimums because you have to use more piloting skill to get the job done.

W0X0F,

With the one snowstorm passed and another on the way: what part of a snowstorm/nor'easter really starts to have an adverse effect on the operation of an airport and the ability of flights to take off (and land)? Is it the snow itself and/or visibility reduction resulting? Is it the wind? Is it snow removal at the airports (are runways heated)? Icing? Other stuff? Assuming snow starts to fall at Newark overnight on Tuesday at a moderate clip, at what point on Wednesday would airport operations really start to feel the effects?

Really interesting read

The worst thing I heard a controller ask was "How many souls on board?"

I'm sorry if I didn't respond...guess it slipped by me somehow. I don't have any more information on this than you can find on the internet.

The article that China Clipper referenced was fascinating...best description of the accident that I've read. The author, William Langewiesche, does a superb job of describing the issues involved leading up to the mid-air. I wish I had his writing skills.

When it's crystal clear and the visibility is unlimited, there's nothing that beats the view from my office. On clear night flights, I've seen the lights of D.C., Baltimore, Philly, and New York stretching out to the Northeast.

But there is something very satisfying about an approach and landing to minimums. I remember when I was flying stand-ups (continuous duty overnights) out of IAD and coming in on the dawn flight to IAD in weather down to 200 ft ceiling with a half mile visibility. Flying the ILS with no autopilot in the J-32 was a nice way to start the day. Shortly after landing, I'd be on the road home, seeing all the other folks fighting morning traffic on the way to their jobs, and I'd be feeling kind of like that Army private in the commercial, "Good morning First Sergeant!" (Do you remember those ads? "We do more before 8 am than most people do all day.")

But...given a choice, I'd go for the good weather.

The main thing is going to be the rate of snowfall. If it's coming down really strong (say, >1"/hour) they may not be able to keep the runways clear. There's two issues with snow on the runway: depth and braking conditions. Most airlines won't operate when the snow depth exceeds 3" or when braking action is being reported as "nil". (Braking action is reported as Good, Fair, Poor or Nil and is either reported by landing aircraft or by ground vehicles testing the surface. It can be somewhat subjective.)

Some airports are better equipped to deal with the snow than others. I was visiting my brother in San Antonio in 1985 when 1-2" of snow paralyzed the city and closed the airport. They didn't have any snow removal equipment. That amount of snow wouldn't cause much of a problem in the northeast.

One of the first things any controller will ask when you declare an emergency is, "State fuel remaining and souls on board." They expect the fuel remaining to be expressed in time, such as "one hour and thirty minutes." I think they want the number of people for search and rescue reasons.

I'm not sure of the origin of "souls on board", but it's a quick way to refer to everyone on board, and eliminates exchanges such as this:

ATC: "How many people on board?"

Pilot: "128"

ATC: "Does that include the crew?"

Pilot: "No...let's see...3 pilots, 8 flight attendants...carry the one...I guess we have 139 on board."

Thoughts on this:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapc...e.body/?hpt=T2

Body found in plane's landing gear bay in Japan

Tokyo, Japan (CNN) -- A body was found in the landing gear bay of an airplane that arrived at Tokyo's Narita Airport Sunday, the airport announced.

The dead man was not carrying a passport or personal belongings, airport police said.

The man was of dark complexion and dressed in blue jeans and a red and dark blue long-sleeved shirt, police told CNN.

Police said he possibly froze to death and suffered a shortage of oxygen at high altitude, but did not provide a definite cause of death pending an autopsy.

A mechanic found the body in the landing gear bay, which was impossible to enter from the cabin, the airport said.

The Boeing 777, Delta Flight 59, which departed New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport at 12:53 p.m. ET Saturday arrived at Narita at 4:46 p.m. local time Sunday, the airport said.

"Delta is fully co-operating with the Japanese authorities, and there is (an) on-going investigation which is being led by the Japanese authorities. The airline has not issued an official statement at this time," a Delta representative told CNN.

Police said he possibly froze to death and suffered a shortage of oxygen? Really? 14 hours at 35000 ft and temperatures of around -50 degrees C and they are hedging their bets on this one? I'd feel pretty safe going out on a limb and changing that to "almost certainly."

I was just told recently of an airport we fly in to (I think it's Abuja, Nigeria) where we have a vehicle that follows the plane to the runway just for the purpose of watching for people who might run and jump into the wheel wells for a "free ride" to the states.

I believe this practice was also implemented in LOS where the aircraft involved in this incident was prior to the JFK-NRT flight.

Let me ask a follow up question, if I may (I have a meteorology degree but never really got into the significant interaction between weather and aviation): what types of wind in a storm like this would keep traffic from departing? Simply above a certain speed? Changing direction/shear? Does it depend upon the precip falling at the time? Or too many other factors to give a simple answer? Thanks for answering.

I "know" the passenger in the way I "know" W0X0F, we've exchanged a few pleasant messages and I read his stuff often. An interesting twist on the story is that as a result of his articles and blog posts pointing out the failures of the Brazilian ATC, Sharkey has been sued for libel in Brazil. They have also threatened to charge him criminally. I guess this as good a summary as any. It is a crazy story all the way around.

Thanks for the link. This has been a very educational day for me...I really knew very little about that crash and the aftermath.

The only kind of precip that will stop traffic is freezing rain or snow so heavy that de-icing is ineffective. As for winds, I'm not sure I remember ever deciding not to depart based solely on the strength (velocity) of the wind unless it's a crosswind. On the other hand, I don't remember taking off in winds in excess of maybe 30-35 knots. High winds are usually associated with an unstable air mass and that often means windshear, which is definitely a reason to stay on the ground.

If you had strong, steady winds you could take off as long as the crosswind component of the wind doesn't exceed the aircraft limitations. For the 767, we can handle up to 30 knots direct crosswind. Thus we could theoretically takeoff in 60 knot winds as long as it's within 30 degrees of the runway direction. But in practice we probably wouldn't leave the gate because of concerns that during the taxi winds that strong would beat up the flight controls (that's the crew's call).

Great answer. Thanks.

Hi Again,

I am reading this thread every day and really enjoying it. You have really given me the itch to try flying and I have booked a lesson thanks to your excellent explanations.

I asked a question a while ago however you never answered, I didn't re-ask as I thought maybe you thought it was a stupid question however I read you missed a couple of other questions and then went back to them.

If my questions are a bit silly I apologize;

am I correct in thinking that wind-shear is when the air is traveling in one direction at a certain altitude and another direction at another(due to different temperatures in the air?) If so, how is this measured, how do they know the wind speed, temperature and direction before planes fly through them?

I have always been told and have seen you mentioned that it is much safer to fly traveling backwards. As the stewards do. I've also been told that the seatbelt's the pilots use are also much safer. Why aren't all the seats done like this?

When I went to book my private lesson (thanks to your thread!) I told the captain that I was extremely scared of flying and understood that it was the fear of not being in control. He argued that when I was driving to the airport (as my cousin was driving) I was not in control. My response was that as we are used to driving we feel in the case of an accident we can grab the steering wheel etc, do something to change our fate (however irrational this may be). The last thing the pilot said was that we are much safer in an aircraft than we are driving.

I have heard this statement a gazillion times however after thinking about it I must disagree.

In maths terms, am I thinking correctly that there are just many more things to cause an accident in a car? Such as people, other cars, strict road regulations, distractions etc.

If we imagine that planes were put in the same situation as cars every day (even though they were checked a million times over by engineers, pilots, maintenance etc. which most cars are not) and sat in traffic lines, traffic lights and were generally bunched up like cars were, there would be MANY more plane crashes?

If we think of it in another way, if cars had traffic controllers directing each car, keeping a specific distance, radar and such technology that meant the only crashes were those of an aeroplane (mechanical failure or pilot error) that this statement would actually be completely wrong?

Sorry for my long explanation and if my question makes no sense at all.

Please keep going with the thread I find it extremely interesting and a joy to read.

Take care and safe flying!

W0X0F,

I'm watching the PBS special on Continental 3407, the Colgan Air accident in Buffalo.

Pretty, pretty...pretty scary what was going on there and also how the big boys are left off the hook completely.


Edit: Oh look, top of page...

+1

I didn't realize one of the perks of your job is to interview the new FAs (some girls will do anything to be one of WOXOX's FAs).

W0X0F,

Have you seen this recreation of Flight 1549 landing in the Hudson?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjXCu...860&feature=iv

It has the recorded audio of Capt. Sullenberger's communications with LaGuardia control and various other agencies. Pretty awesome insight into the communications we passengers never hear.

Sullenberger is unreal calm when the tower tells him a runway is available at LaGuardia and he replies "unable."

That's a great video