freshairborne

I used to do it all the time when I was a Guppy Gap, then Airbus Cap, but on the 757, the passengers deplane from door 2 L normally, so they walk away from the cockpit. On the 767, I do it. I don't get out of my seat until the Parking Checklist is completed, though, and it takes a few minutes from seat belt sign OFF until that checklist is completed, so I don't make it to the door until most people have deplaned.

Even if we get the checklist done quick, and no other issues to deal with, the FC passengers are always long gone.

With light loads, it's not unusual for the flight attendants to be gone as well.

Freshairborne

aluminumdriver

I don't know, I think United pilots say good-bye as much if not more than other airlines. I travel on DAL, AirTran and CAL a lot and I'd say it is less than 50% for pilots saying so long.

I fly for United, and most of the time I will say good-bye if we have time. Sometimes our turn times are just too quick to stay around, or we have minimum layover at our hotel and have to beat feet quick to get there. Other times, the pilots may have a commuter flight to catch. Some pilots might be fed up with United and really just do their jobs and leave. I'm just saying there are lots of reasons why on some flights the pilots are there, while on other ones the pilots aren't there. Now that said, I'd say a majority of passengers I say bye to hardly respond to me. I got folks in 45 min early last week on a LAX-IAD flight and not one thank you, so it did make me wonder why I was standing there saying bye. Next flight where I'm worn down and ready to head to the hotel, I may just forgo the so long wave.

Another thing, if you are in FC or E+, you may be off the plane before the pilots have shut down the engines and completed their checklists and opened the door.

MESA is under ALPA, although the airline is so poorly run and the pilots so poorly paid, you'd have to wonder if they were union represented. ALPA is just a National Association, with numerous airlines all operating under it within their own operating system. United ALPA has its own Master Executive Council that runs all its union activities. Delta the same, Mesa, NWA, Fed Ex, all the same. We rarely deal with ALPA National except in paying them some of our dues, and using the national resources like Legal and Medical departments.

Overall, grounding of planes is not a good thing for pilots, unless United is buying other jets which they are not. As DC said, we were already understaffed, so hopefully this will just make the staffing levels better overall, but it does stop new pilot hiring which is bad for new and old pilots alike. United just canceled all the rest of their new hire classes for this year. Basically, just another beating over the head for the pilots as our careers stagnate due to Age 65, shrinking fleet, and lack of management and growth.

I find the bigger jets tend to feel turbulence in cruise quicker than little jets, probably due to the bigger wings and mass. I remember when I flew the 757, we felt turbulence all the time whereas back on the bus I don't feel it quite as often, even when a 757 or 767 is calling out some turbulence ahead. When I flew my small military jet, I hardly ever noticed turbulence enroute while airlines were calling out light turbulence.

Now, down low on approach, with gusty winds and turbulence, the bigger plane will slice through the turbulence better making for a smoother approach versus a smaller jet that is bounced around a lot more by the gusty winds.

LarryJ

The ride in turbulance is not dependant on the aircraft size or weight but on it's wing loading. Wing loading is the weight of the loaded airplane divided by the surface area of the wing.

A fighter jet has very high wing loading so if it's getting a bumpy ride then you'll really be tossed around in an airliner. Transport jets will have similar wing loadings whether they are a 747 or an RJ. There will be some differences but it will depend more on how heavily each airplane is loaded (i.e. a heavy RJ will probably ride better than a light 767) and the unique conditions that the flight encounters.

Airplanes with slower cruise speeds, such as turboprops, will have lower wing loading and will bounce around more--all else being equal. The lower wing loading allows these airplanes to fly slower and use shorter runways.

goalie

both take off and landing are obviously "very important to a flight" but which do you consider more critical and why. i know, sounds like a dumb question but think about it-iirc, years back, a tw l-10 took off ex-jfk, there was a problem during t/o, the a/c rotated but the f/d tried to "put it right back down" with very bad consequences.

on take off, once you reach "the point of no return" (i don't know if it's v1, v2 or vr so forgive me ), you're committed and have to rotate and go up but what (if any) is the most critical point during take off (and no fair claiming "you gonna call rotate, captain" as the answer )

for landing, what is the most critical point during landing (is there a "cannot go around" equivalent" of must rotate?)

xevious

I'd say so... impressive!!

aluminumdriver

Well, each situation is kind of unique. Our go/no go speed is V1. We are basically committed to taking off at that speed, but if there was a major ep that would keep us from flying, we would still abort above that speed if the plane wouldn't fly. Once I started to rotate, I wouldn't put the plane back down unless the plane just wouldn't fly (ie flight control issue or loss of both engines).

For landing, you could really go-around in an emergency all the way up to touchdown and the throttles are at idle/reverse (automatically deploys speedbrakes at that point, well on the airbus at least). Up until then, you could do a go-around with really no problem.

As for the most critical, IMO takeoff is more critical. The plane is accelerating rapidly, you are eating up runway to stop, and the plane is heavier and full of fuel. A high speed abort or loss of engine on takeoff are serious issues and why we spend so much time training on them. Coming in to land, you have more time for making decisions, can go-around if things get a little squirelly, and are usually light weight making the plane easier to handle and fly.

GoingAway

I saw the A380 the other day and that thing is just huge. It got me thinking about what it's like to drive a plane on the ground/tarmac (or "normal" size). Does it feel like a driving a truck or ? Is the acceleration to takeoff like driving on a racetrack?

bhmlurker

My father was a mechanic for CI back in the 80s during the alleged multi-engine flame-out on the 747SP. The incident is linked at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_006 Has any UA pilots here experienced engine flame-out? I'm guessing they were all handled much more properly, else we'd hear it in the news.

My second question is has there been 2-engine flame-out on an ETOPS aircraft (not necessarily at UA)? 2 engine must not be any more dangerous than 4 engine, or else airlines would've bought up A340 instead of 777?

FlyinHawaiian

As a reminder, the topic of the thread is questions to and answers from United Airlines' pilots. I've removed a few recent posts that were neither of the above and, therefore, off-topic.

Thanks for your cooperation,

FlyinHawaiian, Co-Moderator
United Mileage Plus Forum

aluminumdriver

When you move a plane around on the ground, you use a tiller with your left hand, the throttles for power to move, and the brakes at the top of the rudder pedals to stop. The tiller is hydraulically assisted, so turning the jet is pretty simple, you just have to be careful not to hit anything since your wings jut out during turns and you may not be able to see everything around you. That is why ALPA is so opposed to single-engine taxiing and doing other ground ops while taxiing, so both pilots can watch out for hazards.

When you accelerate for takeoff, you are using the rudder to maintain runway centerline, not really the tiller, so it is just like any other aircraft. I've never driven in a NASCAR car (although I'd like to), so I have no idea if it is like a racecar but I'd have to guess NO since we accerate a lot slower and don't pull G's as we accelerate.

United has never had a 2 engine flameout of a 2-engine ETOPs aircraft that I know of. The only one I have heard about was the ANSAT airbus that lost both engines over the N. Atlantic due to fuel starvation and had to coast it into and land at the Azores. Pretty dramatic too, landed over 200 mph but managed to stop the jet.

lucky9876coins

And for anyone that wants to watch the fascinating National Geographic Air Crash Investigations about this, check it out on youtube.

LarryJ

Wasn't there an issue with a 767 that had a momentary double-engine failure due to some crossfeeding issues? I'm thinking that it was a flight either to or from Hawaii but I don't remember any details.

There's also been a number of instances where B747s, and possibly other types, have lost ALL engines after flying through volcanic ash. I don't recall any of the airlines involved but, as far as I can remember, in all cases at least some of the engines were restarted after they descended out of the ash and all landed safely.

aluminumdriver

Yeah, I think you are correct about the United 767, but that was a fuel crossfeeding issue, not an aircraft issue. They got both engines started again quickly. Here's the story:

Full story here http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/boeing10.shtml

The crew was able to restart both engines and the plane diverted to Keahole-Kona Airport on Hawaii, where it landed safely. No one was injured. The jet had minor wheel and brake damage from making an overweight landing because it carried so much fuel.
As for the ash, that was a while ago and I don't remember all the specifics. I think they got some of the engines going again, but not all of them, and I'm not even sure it was a United jet that had that happen to them. Really stretching my memory on that one since it was long ago before we knew the dangers of volcanic ash.

coolbeans202

I think it was KLM over Alaska and BA over Indonesia.

FortFun

links the the stories mentioned by coolbeans202 (engines safely restarted in both cases):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030913/bob8.asp