Wall St. Journal Article
Mar 19, 1999, 4:35 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Manhattan
Programs: 40 46'N 73 57'W; AA Gold; CO Silver
Posts: 381
Wall St. Journal Article
Wow, end of the business day, and no one has written yet on today's WSJ article about the United 747 that nearly crashed into a San Francisco mountain (hill) and led to all these changes in co-pilot training.
Not sure how to get it on-line if you haven't read it. You need a password on wsj.com. Anyway, here are my reactions:
1. Very surprised that many int'l co-pilots end up doing only 1 live takeoff a month (due to scheduling and being 1 of the 2 back-up co-pilots). Seems like a pretty cushy job and/or the FAA is assuming a lot in setting rest times after int'l flights.
2. What was the pilot doing the whole time?? They kept referencing the co-pilot doing this or that in reaction to the emergency, and the pilot didn't come in until he took the helm to save the day.
3. Must have been pretty darn scary to be a passenger with the whole plane shaking and the ground so close.
4. Sickening to think of how much fuel had to be dumped into the ocean to land the plane back at SFO. That Sydney flight is I think the 2nd or 3rd longest in the world and must have been full to the brim with fuel.
5. The takeoff pattern at SFO (Runway 28) sounds potentially dangerous now that I think about it (over the Peninsula Range and over densely populated areas), even though I've done it like 50 times. Then again, it's what you have to do when planes land from the Bay side.
Not sure how to get it on-line if you haven't read it. You need a password on wsj.com. Anyway, here are my reactions:
1. Very surprised that many int'l co-pilots end up doing only 1 live takeoff a month (due to scheduling and being 1 of the 2 back-up co-pilots). Seems like a pretty cushy job and/or the FAA is assuming a lot in setting rest times after int'l flights.
2. What was the pilot doing the whole time?? They kept referencing the co-pilot doing this or that in reaction to the emergency, and the pilot didn't come in until he took the helm to save the day.
3. Must have been pretty darn scary to be a passenger with the whole plane shaking and the ground so close.
4. Sickening to think of how much fuel had to be dumped into the ocean to land the plane back at SFO. That Sydney flight is I think the 2nd or 3rd longest in the world and must have been full to the brim with fuel.
5. The takeoff pattern at SFO (Runway 28) sounds potentially dangerous now that I think about it (over the Peninsula Range and over densely populated areas), even though I've done it like 50 times. Then again, it's what you have to do when planes land from the Bay side.
Mar 20, 1999, 6:16 pm
#2
Join Date: May 1998
Programs: AAExecPlat MM, DL MM, HH Platinum
Posts: 509
I have a close friend who was on that flight, and not only did he say it was scary, but United's treatment of the passengers afterwards was terrible. They were put up overnight miles and miles from the airport. Taken on a bus driven by a driver who may have been drunk--he tried to put them off at the wrong hotel, went 60mph the wrong way on a one-way street, etc. Truly was a trip from hell.
Mar 21, 1999, 10:55 am
#3
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Pasadena, CA. USA
Posts: 1,438
100K:
That was a fascinating article and highlights the some problems that most people take for granted in flying. I will post an URL in the buzz section as soon as I find it.
That was a fascinating article and highlights the some problems that most people take for granted in flying. I will post an URL in the buzz section as soon as I find it.