T1B

Some truths in there, but these are mostly gripes about their employers and not the FAA or other regulators. That is why you would never find me flying for any of the airlines.

I have always rated the pilot's landing: A-F. I guess F would be something I do not wish to experience. If I see the captain as we leave the plane, I will tell them good job.
BTW--I will be flying from RSW to BUF next month. The first time I've flown in years. PET and all may be forthcoming when I get back.

Wolfman wrote:PET and all may be forthcoming when I get back.

Please don't post the photos of you getting molested by TSA.

Papa Willie wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Some truths in there, but these are mostly gripes about their employers and not the FAA or other regulators. That is why you would never find me flying for any of the airlines.

Though it was fake and on MS FlightSim, I flew into John Wayne in a Convair 880 about a week ago. The 880 & 990 pretty much tend to drop out of the sky at anything below about 170 knots. Anyway - I can see why they were bitching about that one - certainly in an airliner!

Set up a takeoff out of John Wayne in a 737 or 330. Check the regs on climb out angle, and then the power reduction as you get down range..stand it on its tail to put the noise on the airport, then pull off the power and watch your airspeed unwind. That place sucks.

Left Seater wrote:Some truths in there, but these are mostly gripes about their employers and not the FAA or other regulators. That is why you would never find me flying for any of the airlines.

I use to fly back and forth to San Diego a lot a few years back. Probably 6 to 8 times a year. I had the same pilot several times, and he was sitting in the seat still when I got up there. I asked him if he got to get off to take a piss or anything, and he said hell no. We are on a 20 minute turn on this one, I have to wait until we get back to San Diego. He was basically running shuttle runs in an MD 84 all day. With the tight sequencing at San Diego, sometimes they tried to turn less than that. Fucking tight ass airlines.

Derron wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Some truths in there, but these are mostly gripes about their employers and not the FAA or other regulators. That is why you would never find me flying for any of the airlines.

I use to fly back and forth to San Diego a lot a few years back. Probably 6 to 8 times a year. I had the same pilot several times, and he was sitting in the seat still when I got up there. I asked him if he got to get off to take a piss or anything, and he said hell no. We are on a 20 minute turn on this one, I have to wait until we get back to San Diego. He was basically running shuttle runs in an MD 84 all day. With the tight sequencing at San Diego, sometimes they tried to turn less than that. Fucking tight ass airlines.

Why do you hate America?

Wolfman wrote:I have always rated the pilot's landing: A-F. I guess F would be something I do not wish to experience. If I see the captain as we leave the plane, I will tell them good job.
BTW--I will be flying from RSW to BUF next month. The first time I've flown in years. PET and all may be forthcoming when I get back.

Pax seem to always think that a landing that is hardly noticeable is a good one. I disagree. many times a good landing is one that is "firm.". In a high crosswind, a wet runway, or a short runway a firm landing is the way to go. Plant the damn gear so the auto spoilers deploy quickly, get the weight on the gear, and leave pavement in front of you. Runway behind you is worthless.

Derron wrote: Set up a takeoff out of John Wayne in a 737 or 330. Check the regs on climb out angle, and then the power reduction as you get down range..stand it on its tail to put the noise on the airport, then pull off the power and watch your airspeed unwind. That place sucks.

There in lies a big problem with flight sim. If it will let you get an A330 off the ground at John Wayne it is bogus. No way in hell you are getting an A330 off the ground in 5700 feet with any sort of fuel, bags, people or cargo. Much less following published noise procedures. The A330 and A340 are way under powered as it is, and flights at half of their max range still need 7500 plus feet for anything less than firewalled throttle settings.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Derron wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Some truths in there, but these are mostly gripes about their employers and not the FAA or other regulators. That is why you would never find me flying for any of the airlines.

I use to fly back and forth to San Diego a lot a few years back. Probably 6 to 8 times a year. I had the same pilot several times, and he was sitting in the seat still when I got up there. I asked him if he got to get off to take a piss or anything, and he said hell no. We are on a 20 minute turn on this one, I have to wait until we get back to San Diego. He was basically running shuttle runs in an MD 84 all day. With the tight sequencing at San Diego, sometimes they tried to turn less than that. Fucking tight ass airlines.

Why do you hate America?

Why do people on here say you fuck little boys ?

Derron wrote: Why do people on here say you fuck little boys ?

Pathetic, but predictable.

"Things your pilot won't say to your face"

Unfortunately for the rest of us, no one's telling shutyomouth:

Sir, you need to pay for two seats.

Papa Willie wrote: Why are a lot of those Airbus units like that? Seems like they would burn more fuel at cruise just because they'd have to run them harder. A structural issue? They seem to have gotten a little more adequate power to the 380's, but then again - their wings are already cracking up!

I know I took off in an old A-300 back in the 80's from Seattle to Atlanta, and that's probably the only time in my life I got concerned of whether there was enough runway to do it. As soon as the rear wheels got off the ground - there was no more pavement - INSTANT. One seriously slow motherfucker. I know it was loaded with people & fuel, but god damn.

Cruise speed is a factor of many things but weight, wing design and thrust are the primary ones. The wing design of the earlier Airbuses pretty much sucked. The A340s especially. Notice Airbus no longer even produces them because the Boeing 777 was kicking its ass. The A380 wing is much much better.

For the most part the 747 and 777 cruise at M0.85, or 85% of the speed of sound. The A300, A330, and A340 mostly cruise at M0.81. While this might not seem to be a huge deal at first, it can be a huge deal when crossing the Atlantic or Pacific. When crossing the oceans planes fly in tracks. Invisible lanes in the sky that change pretty much daily according to weather. While in these lanes, you can't just pull out wide and go around someone else. So a 777 that enters a track right behind an A330 is going to have to slow down while crossing the ocean. This sucks.

I am not a fan of the Airbus family of planes. I don't care for the loud hydraulic pump noise you constantly hear on their single aisle family, and their wide bodies are slow and underpowered as discussed. You won't find me on their single aisle family if I can help it, and you will never find me on their dual aisle family over an ocean.

The 787 will be fine. The problems have been with the batteries. It is actually performing petter than expect on some routes which is awesome.

There are many problems as you approach M1.0. Most want to stay away from those issues. The 880 was pretty innovative, but the economics just didn't work. You and I, well you mostly (since I never rode on one) decided you wanted lower fares over speed. Those two could coexist until fuel became the airlines largest expense.

The G550 (which I spend a lot of my time in) gets along at M0.87 in most cases. If we were trying to go super long distance we would dial it back to M0.80 to save gas, along with a longer time to altitude, a few step climbs, etc. Its Mmo or max operating Mach is M0.885.

At max takeoff weight our usual initial altitude is around 41,000. We will then step climb to 51,000. Compare that to an A330 or A340 that might top out at 30,000 initially or a 747 or 777 at 32,000. They would then step climb another 5 to 7K max.

Papa Willie wrote:

Left Seater wrote:The 787 will be fine. The problems have been with the batteries. It is actually performing petter than expect on some routes which is awesome.

There are many problems as you approach M1.0. Most want to stay away from those issues. The 880 was pretty innovative, but the economics just didn't work. You and I, well you mostly (since I never rode on one) decided you wanted lower fares over speed. Those two could coexist until fuel became the airlines largest expense.

Nope - never had the good fortune of riding on a Convair. I'd guess the fastest "hot rod" I remember flying on was a 720B. Don't remember much about it (I think I was about 4), but those things would cruise @ .88-.90.

Where are you getting the Convair downloads for Flight Sim?

Remembering flying out of SYR after being north for a funeral a few years ago. Was on one of those little puddle jumper jets that was taking us to Cleveland to connect for a flight back to RSW. It was snowing pretty good. We went and got de-iced. As this was happening, MrsO commented that it looked like their was more crap on the wings than before the process. The pilot comes out and inspects the wings. He even told us what he was doing. We took off and got to Cleveland after a rough flight. It was a bit disconcerting to say the least.

KC Scott wrote:"Most of the time, how you land is a good indicator of a pilot's skill. So if you want to say something nice to a pilot as you're getting off the plane, say 'Nice landing.' We do appreciate that." -Joe D'Eon

When I was 10, we were on a flight from Rochester to Buffalo to Tampa. After we landed in Buffalo with a horrible flat as a pancake landing, they switched pilots and the pilot we had stayed on to Tampa. My 7 year old brother was sitting right next to the pilot so, as earnestly as possible, he says to the pilot, "I hope you're better than the guy who just landed us. That landing was horrible."

The pilot didn't say another word for the rest of the flight.

Not as PIC, but had the chance to sit in the right seat a few times.



The process of de-icing does sometimes leave evidence. This is good so as you can tell.

Left Seater wrote:
The A330 and A340 are way under powered as it is, and flights at half of their max range still need 7500 plus feet for anything less than firewalled throttle settings.

if I recall correctly, Airbuses have some pretty severe T.O. power limitations depending on ambient temperature and/or density altitude. A lot of times full power isn't allowed

That is my understanding as well. You basically set the throttle levers into one of three detents and FADEC will decide what the available power is. So you may only make one throttle movement from releasing the brakes on takeoff until you go to idle for the flare. Regardless the airplane will not let you use any more thrust that it decides is appropriate.

Boeing also has an auto throttle system, but in theirs the throttle levers move as the system adds or removes power. Plus you can always firewall the throttles on a Boeing when you need emergency thrust. On the bus you would have to look to your N1 display to determine what the engines were doing.

Two decades ago or so a bus crashed while doing a fly by at an air show when the auto throttle system thought the plane was landing and bled off power. The pilot moved the throttle levers to toga detent as the bus approached the trees, but the auto throttle system overruled his command. He finally kicked out of auto throttle to manual but to late to save the plane or the crews lives.

That would be this one. Note the engines finally spooling up a bit about the time it goes in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxlBhucGayA

That would be it. You can hear them finally give some additional power about a second before the fire ball.

Flying Air Tran from RSW to BUF and back with changes in ATL. Looks like all flights are on Boeing 717's. They look like the MD-80's I've flown on before. Trying to get seats in the two seat side of the aisle in rows that are not an issue for engine noise or leg room. Any of the T1B airline crew familiar with these?

Yeah, very familiar with the 717. It is the latest in the DC-9 line. Great plane, very comfy and the best overhead bins in a single aisle cabin.

Look for seats just in front of the exit row. Or the exit row if those aren't blocked for the members of their awards program. With the power plants at the rear of the cabin this is a pretty quiet plane.