The best line I have ever heard about carrier landings: "Take your aircraft moving at 140mph and hit a 4x4 foot block of steel moving at 30 mph."

Next best: "You don't so much land on an aircraft carrier as you merely crash into it in a highly stylized manner."

I have a question: Any chance you are driving Flt. 1502 (EWR-LAX) on Sunday the 26th?

Nope. I'm in the Schoolhouse this month down in IAH going through 737 training. I fly a little in May for my initial line training, then go on vacation for two weeks, which takes me out to mid-June. Then I guess I'll be back out on the line.....

Got bumped off the 757 here in IAH, and didn't want to go to EWR to stay on it. Figured I'd try something different until I can get back to the 75.

You're a better man than I. I fit just fine in either seat of the 757's front office, but I can't possibly squeeze into the 737 cockpit. Granted, I am certainly not the standard by which anything is measured, but I was surprised after the tour at IAH MX during the Do about how much difference there was between the 757 and 737 in terms of space up front.

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8830/4.2.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

Ok, here's a new question, written as we sit on CO51 in the ballpark while IAH is on an unknown duration ground hold while it gets hammered by tstorms.


If we get stuck on a hold for a destination, and we likely have enough fueal aboard, why can't we re-file to an alternate destination (in our case AUS or SAT which are clear now) and get into the air so that we're that much closer to the destination?

Just a thought while I'm sitting here 60min into the hold with another 60min to go...

Let's see... extra fuel $$, landing fees, parking fees, ground service fees... yeah I'm pretty sure the easy answer is because that would be a poor financial decision. You bought a ticket to IAH, not AUS or SAT, and the company has no obligation to get you there until it's in the best interest of your safety to do so.

I think what he meant was, file a new flight plan to AUS and while in route, change it back to IAH so as to avoid the ground stop.

Oh! Whoopsy That sounds more like an FAA question...

The ground stop system is not a bug that can be corrected by tricking the FAA ETMS (enhanced traffic management system) about your destination. Ground stops are a very cool technical innovation that reduces opreator costs and pilot/controller workload. If everyone filed to an airport near KIAH and then diverted to KIAH en route, then everyone would just be holding around KIAH and trading a ground stop for an en route hold.

What you're describing is akin to suggesting everyone should carry devices that pretend to be an emergency vehicle and change intersection lights to green as they drive so that nobody has to wait. The result would, of course, be everyone waiting more.

2 Questions:

Do you read Patrick Smith's "Ask the Pilot" column at Salon.com? If so, what do you think?

Are there alot of Grateful Dead fans amongst the pilots at CO? Flying SNA-EWR a few weeks ago we had a bit of a rough landing and the pilot said something along the lines of "that was a 9-mile skid on a 10-mile ride" (He's Gone) and I thought that was one of the coolest things ever, being a Head myself.

xyzzy will appreciate that one too!!

My uncle, who was a pilot in the Air Force back in the day and now flies a ton for work, told me that Airbus planes are all computerized (in terms of controlling flaps, rudders and such) whereas Boeing planes still use wired controls. My terminology is off here I am sure, so I hope I am making sense. Any truth to that?
Thanks!

What you are talking about is called Fly-by-wire (FBW). Airbus first used in A320 series....and also has in A330, A340, and A380. Boeing did introduce some FBW in the 777 and will have full FBW in the 787. Even the Embraer 145 has some FBW (the brake system).

Thanks Dkul-
I thought it might be called fly by wire, but I didn't want to throw terms out there when I wasn't certain.
My uncle seems to think that non FBW are a bit safer than the alternative - (theoretically at least) but perhaps it is just an aversion to Europeans...
Is there a difference in the feel/response of the plane when it comes to non fbw to fbw?

When we say non-fly-by-wire, or mechanically controlled, we are generally talking about the control surfaces being connected in some way to the control inputs. On older planes, and many newer planes, there is a connection via cables or other mechanical means and the input is augmented with hydraulics, airflow or other methods to make flying the plane less fatiguing.

With some caveats, Boeing uses the above method. Airbus uses fly-by-wire which means the the control inputs are read by a computer and translated into appropriate moment of the control surfaces with zero physical connection. Although time has shown that both methods are incredibly safe, some feel that there can be something "lost in translation" between what the pilot wants the plane to do and what the computer thinks he wants the plane to do.

If there is catastrophic system failure, the Airbus HAS to have some sort of backup power/computer system to operate the plane. With a non fly by wire, theoretically you can have a completely dead plane and still fly it, albeit at times with some great effort.


Anyone feel free to correct me if I got anything wrong.