T1B

initial reports say a Southwest jet blew two of the mains on takeoff last night from Sacramento. They rejected the takeoff and brought the plane to a stop on the pavement four feet left of the centerline. Big props to those guys! The same thing is what brought the Concorde down for good.

http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post ... s/592891/1

Maybe some FOD ? to take down 2 at once ?

I blew a tire on the 182 one time landing on a gravel strip. No problems but made the old stomach jump when it happened.

Left Seater wrote:initial reports say a Southwest jet blew two of the mains on takeoff last night from Sacramento. They rejected the takeoff and brought the plane to a stop on the pavement four feet left of the centerline. Big props to those guys! The same thing is what brought the Concorde down for good.

http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post ... s/592891/1

Out of curiosity, Lefty... how does a pilot know when a tire blows before wheels up? Is it simply that the plane suddenly veers hard right or left?

In a single word, yes. Suddenly you are using a ton more rudder and you are still pointing at the grass. Sometimes you may feel or hear a thump which adds to what your eyes are screaming.

If you are below V1 which is go, no go decision speed, then by all means you are rejecting the take off and you are doing everything you can to keep it close to the centerline, including bringing the opposite engine back. If you are above V1 then it can get very hot very quickly. Usually if you reject a takeoff above V1 it is because you don't think the plane is flyable. Rejecting in this case might mean running out of runway to stop the plane and/or blowing more tires trying to stop the plane.

In many cases blowing a tire can also lead to the failure of an engine as the debris gets sucked into and guts the engine. Tail mounted engines are more prone to this.

Is "rejected" the standard term used by pilots?

I thought it sounded kind of odd, thinking "aborted" was the proper term. I then read the link and saw that they used "aborted".

yeah, by "rejected" I thought he meant the pilots refused to leave the airport lounge.

I think rejected is more commonly used, and I believe the military also uses the term. Call it whatever the he'll you want but it will get your blood flowing instantly if you have to do it.

Derron wrote:Maybe some FOD ? to take down 2 at once ?

I blew a tire on the 182 one time landing on a gravel strip. No problems but made the old stomach jump when it happened.

keep your fucking feet off the fucking brakes and that won't happen

I thought this was another celeb playing Words with Friend thread

Left Seater wrote:I think rejected is more commonly used, and I believe the military also uses the term.

In the Navy and Marine Corps we use the term "abort" as it's drilled into our heads. I wonder if they had been above V1 if they would have left the gear down and gone up to 6000 ft to dump fuel then come back to land.

No chance for FOD as the mains are well behind the engines on the B737. Southwest doesn't pay their pilots really well, but they hire some of the best from the military.

smackaholic wrote:I thought it sounded kind of odd, thinking "aborted" was the proper term.

It will be once Jsc gets his pilot's license.

i think slim pretty well nailed it. actually, speeds haven't increased in more like 50 years. The 707 flew as fast, maybe faster than today's jets. got something to do with that sound barrier deal. weird shit starts happening aerodynamically speaking when you get close to it, so it is pretty much the commercial jet speed limit as exceeding it gets very expensive. about the only thing that has changed much since the 707 is engine efficiency.

KC Scott wrote: Almsot EVERY Delta flight I'm on out of KC is 2 x 2 or 2 x3 seat config - and that's to all the hubs - ATL / DET / SLC / MSP and the one a days to BOS and LAG. Fucking long miserable flights.

I'm surprised there's anything without a prop flying out of that godforesaken backwater hole.

even shitty little bradley "international" here in Ct has mostly 737 service to real airports.

funny how i've never seen a single soul go into/out of the international barn terminal. It is separate from the main terminal.

KC Scott wrote:Almsot EVERY Delta flight I'm on out of KC is 2 X 1 or 3 X 1 seat config

Fixed

rack these SWA pilots too.

Papa Willie wrote:

KC Scott wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:They could only run a 2x3 seat configuration as opposed to 3x3 - plus weren't quite as long, either. They DID eat as much or more gas, though, and less people + more gas = fucked.

Nowadays, the only thing they care about is costs per mile, per asses in seats. The lower they get that - the better. And you can't blame them at all, due to fuel costs

good info - thanks spray.

Almsot EVERY Delta flight I'm on out of KC is 2 x 2 or 2 x3 seat config - and that's to all the hubs - ATL / DET / SLC / MSP and the one a days to BOS and LAG. Fucking long miserable flights.

If we can't fly planes any fast than we did 50 years ago, I'm guessing we won't be seeing that Star Trek teleporter anytime soon

Oh ya - nowadays for shorter flights, it's pretty much going to be CRJ's (2x2's) or 737's. You don't see many 757's or 767's on short flights at ALL anymore unless it's a high-consumer use.

I remember going from Chicago to ATL back in about '98 on an L1011 (old wide-bodied, big fucker). Though they might well have just been returning the plane to ATL (it was Delta), there were 4 of us and I counted 8 other people. 12 passengers on a plane that could carry about 250 wasn't exactly very profitable for Delta. :grin:

Too easy.

Cuda wrote:rack these SWA pilots too.

...dind't know Derron was driving for SW.

Little know secret....the airlines are using retreaded tires on their aircrafts.

Left Seater wrote:initial reports say a Southwest jet blew two of the mains on takeoff last night from Sacramento. They rejected the takeoff and brought the plane to a stop on the pavement four feet left of the centerline. Big props to those guys! The same thing is what brought the Concorde down for good.

http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post ... s/592891/1

I've been in the cockpit on a few ruff flights and landings and what I learned is that flying is a lot easier than most pilots make it out to be.

KC Scott wrote:If we can't fly planes any fast than we did 50 years ago,

We can and do easily. It just isn't cost effective for commerical travel.

mvscal wrote: We can and do easily. It just isn't cost effective for commerical travel.

A 1966 GII had a speed of 581mph and can be had used for under a half a mil.
A 2002 G4 has a speed of 581 and cost 35 MILLION dollars.

Have you EVER been right about ANYTHING?

Moving Sale wrote:

Left Seater wrote:initial reports say a Southwest jet blew two of the mains on takeoff last night from Sacramento. They rejected the takeoff and brought the plane to a stop on the pavement four feet left of the centerline. Big props to those guys! The same thing is what brought the Concorde down for good.

http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post ... s/592891/1

I've been in the cockpit on a few ruff flights and landings and what I learned is that flying is a lot easier than most pilots make it out to be.

flying is incredibly easy. landing is difficult, however

Cuda wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:I've been in the cockpit on a few ruff flights and landings and what I learned is that flying is a lot easier than most pilots make it out to be.

flying is incredibly easy. landing is difficult, however

Good fucking GOD you are stupid.

don't blame me, tiny one.

i didn't type your post, you did

Moving Sale wrote: I've been in the cockpit on a few ruff flights and landings and what I learned is that flying is a lot easier than most pilots make it out to be.

IF you know what you're doing. With all of your experience being in a cockpit, ever see an emergency, or know what to do during one?

Moving Sale wrote:

mvscal wrote: We can and do easily. It just isn't cost effective for commerical travel.

A 1966 GII had a speed of 581mph and can b]e had used for under a half a mil.
A 2002 G4 has a speed of 581 and cost 35 MILLION dollars.

Have you EVER been right about ANYTHING?

I believe he has called you a stupid fucking douche bag on several occasions and that seems accurate.

ChargerMike wrote:

Cuda wrote:rack these SWA pilots too.

...dind't know Derron was driving for SW.

When your a playa, that is how you roll. Never had any problems ever with an open mike either on emergency services or in flying. Heard enough of them to be very cognizant of who has their hand on the mike switch or yoke at all times.

Atomic Punk wrote:

Moving Sale wrote: I've been in the cockpit on a few ruff flights and landings and what I learned is that flying is a lot easier than most pilots make it out to be.

IF you know what you're doing. With all of your experience being in a cockpit, ever see an emergency, or know what to do during one?

The only emergency he may have encountered was the lack of a flight manual to sit on so his midget ass could see over the panel.

[quote="Moving Bowels]


I've been in the cockpit on a few ruff flights and landings [/quote]

You are the cockpit you fucking tard...you have taken it up the ass more times here than you probably have in real life. What was it , take your midget flying day ?

If they found out you were a fucking lawyer, you ass is going out the door at 30,000 feet.

Moving Sale wrote:

Cuda wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:I've been in the cockpit on a few ruff flights and landings and what I learned is that flying is a lot easier than most pilots make it out to be.

flying is incredibly easy. landing is difficult, however

Good fucking GOD you are stupid.

dude gets his mile high bottom wings and now he's an aviation expert.

not any sort of aviation expert, but, landing during bad conditions sure the fukk is hard. of course when such conditions exist, i'm sure the pilots put a stop to their midget train pull as they don't need the distractions.

Sorry been out having fun the last few days.

Cursing speed is mostly about fuel burn now, but as others have said we won't be going supersonic anytime soon. A lot of the slower gate to gate times are due to congestion around airports. Lots more flights today than 25 to 40 years ago. With that is a ton more ATC slowdowns and you therefore see longer gate to gate times.

Left Seater wrote:Cursing speed...

Props for the malaprop.

The iPad is nice for email and the like and is much smaller than the laptop, but damn you auto correct.


Glad you enjoyed it.

Flying is actually very difficult, but if the pilots you observed made it look easy then they were doing it right.

The physical act of controlling an aircraft in a reasonably steady manner is a skill few manage to do well, but throw into the mix FAA regulations and procedures, emergency procedures, ATC procedures, CRM (keeping the guy next to you from doing something stupid and keeping yourself from doing something stupid), knowledge of weather, electrical systems, hydraulic systems, powerplant systems, fuel systems, flight control systems, FADEC procedures, power management, and thousands of other things and the average person would just wilt under the pressure.

Flying a complex aircraft makes by comparison driving an ordinary car-- something the vast majority of people do poorly --as easy as breathing. The skill required at the ATP level is no less than the flying equivilent of a surgeon or a first chair symphony-class musician. But then again, those people make what they do look easy too.

Never mistake relaxed competance for things like your mere rudimentary motor skills, Moving Sale.

Rooster wrote:Flying is actually very difficult, but if the pilots you observed made it look easy then they were doing it right.

And the part that I had to do so we didn't crash was pretty easy too. We can go round and round all you want, all I'm saying is it is not has hard as most pilots make it out to be.

Moving Sale wrote:And the part that I had to do so we didn't crash was pretty easy too.

I call bullshit. shutting the fuck up and sitting the fuck down couldn't possibly be easy for you

Moving Sale wrote:

Rooster wrote:Flying is actually very difficult, but if the pilots you observed made it look easy then they were doing it right.

And the part that I had to do so we didn't crash was pretty easy too. We can go round and round all you want, all I'm saying is it is not has hard as most pilots make it out to be.

Let's see here..your not a pilot, but you claim it is not that hard to fly, and that most pilots make it sound as if it is hard to fly. I am sure that everyone will believe you over a LICENSED pilot, since a pilot is some one who has the training versus you, a big black cock receptacle of the lowest degree with NO pilots license.

And what was your part ? Cleaning up the flight crews sandwich crumbs off the floor ?

Moving Sale wrote:

Rooster wrote:Flying is actually very difficult, but if the pilots you observed made it look easy then they were doing it right.

And the part that I had to do so we didn't crash was pretty easy too. We can go round and round all you want, all I'm saying is it is not has hard as most pilots make it out to be.

Why do you feel qualified to even have an opinion on the subject of aviation? What Rooster said may have flown over your head. BTW, if talking about speeds, we talk about it in knots or Mach speeds... not mph. I forget but maybe there are some aircraft that still use mph as a reference on old instruments, but I forget.

A few questions:

1) What do you do when you lose your radios?
2) What do you do if you have a fire of unknown origin?
3) When flying an IFR flight plan and you lose your transponder, how do you report your position to ATC or give updates to be accurate within 3 minutes of a mandatory checkpoint along the airway?
4) A fuel transfer valve between the tanks fails on you... what do you do?
5) Fuel fumes in the cockpit, what would you do?

Those are just a few examples of many that I've been though. I would like to hear about it, pothead.

Punk, are you a pilot?

TiVO's got thousands of hours of stick time. Most of it in varies bay area bath houses.