Plane Answers: Takeoff and landing concerns

by Kent Wien on

Welcome to Gadling’s feature, Plane Answers, where our resident airline pilot, Kent Wien, answers your questions about everything from takeoff to touchdown and beyond. Have a question of your own? Ask away!

We’ve had some great questions lately and I’m finally getting around to answering a couple of them this week. If yours hasn’t been answered, I probably have it in the que for later.

Fallyn begins:

I somehow found your site yesterday and have not gotten any work done since. I myself do not like to fly. Terrified all the way till landing. I’m sure you meet a lot of people on here that are the same way as me. I do fly though and a lot compared to most people.

I was sitting next to a nice flight attendant and he told me (because I hate take off) that autopilot takes off. This calms my nerves but now after reading [your Plane Answers feature about autopilots] I am fearful again.

To me the autopilot would know if there was a problem because computers know when there are problems but how can a human know there’s an issue with something they can not see.

Really it’s just take off that bothers me, as soon as I see the flight attendants moving around and the seat belt sign off I begin to relax. So I guess my question is how do you know it is safe to take off and that everything is in working order. I love traveling, it’s what I live for.

Oh yeah I love your blog, it’s awesome. I have read many many blogs and I have never emailed or commented on someone’s before.

Fallyn

Thanks for the nice comments, Fallyn.
There’s no airliner in the world that is currently certified for autopilot takeoffs. Part of the reason for this is because, in addition to the mechanical problems that can occur on takeoff, there are also external conditions to be aware of.

I could detail everything that could go wrong that a computer wouldn’t know about, but that might make you even more anxious about takeoffs. Let’s just say that computers wouldn’t be good at seeing a Moose on the runway.

You might be happy to learn that we practice some of the worst-case takeoff scenarios constantly in the simulator when we do our recurrent training. One of the most critical, an engine failure just as we’re lifting off, is accomplished at least five or six times during the training and check ride.

The airplane has a center screen in the middle of the cockpit called the Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System (EICAS). Any problems that are considered important during a takeoff are illuminated here, and if the issue is significant enough, the alert is accompanied by a bell or some other tone to get the pilot’s attention.

So successfully handling an emergency during takeoff relies on a combination of the computer’s diagnostic abilities and the pilot’s judgement.

Interestingly, just 29% of all airline accidents occur on the takeoff or climb-out phase of flight.

Next time you fly, ask to visit the cockpit during boarding and take a look around. I’m sure the pilots would be happy to show you the layout of the instruments and I suspect you’ll be less anxious as you become more familiar with what’s going on upfront.

Mary asks:

We fly Southwest Airlines exclusively.

My question: why do 737’s landings become kamikaze-like missions? Why the need to come in so fast and then throw the brakes on leaving the passengers wondering if the pilot has mastered take-offs but not landings?

We recently flew into Midway, IL and used every bit of runway available. We came in typically really fast and hot, then the usual throwing on of the brakes, everyone gets pinned to their seat as the plane grumbles, pops, snaps and shakes like crazy until the plane has slowed sufficiently to avoid entering a freeway, corn field or the rear end of the 737 that landed just ahead.

This paticular landing was much harsher and everyone was aware that we used every bit of tarmac. Any chance these planes will become less violent at landing? I do feel as though we’ve landed on an aircraft carrier and gotten caught by the cables on deck.

Very observant, Mary. The 737 actually has the fastest approach speed of any of the modern Boeing airliners. Combine that with the relatively short runway length at Midway and it’s no wonder it felt like an aircraft carrier.

At the maximum landing weight, a 737-800 will touch down around 153 knots, versus 137 knots for a 757-200.

The landing gear also feels a bit stiffer on the 737, making it slightly more challenging to get a smooth touchdown versus other Boeings. Either way, a smooth landing isn’t a high priority on any runway less than 7000 feet. It’s important to land early on the runway so the weight can be placed on the wheels for more effective braking.

Reverse thrust is also used, although even with all that noise and vibration, it only shortens the rollout by a few hundred feet.

Pilots may elect to use automatic braking to slow the airplane on these shorter runways. Autobrakes have settings from 1 to 4 or 5. Maximum is usually reserved for very wet or icy runways. When used on a dry runway, these higher settings can stop the airplane in less than 3000 feet.

You’ll never have to worry about running into the airplane that lands ahead of you, since the runway needs to be clear before we’re issued a landing clearance.

So the next time you land at Midway, just think of it as an “E-Ticket” ride at Disneyland for no extra charge.

Do you have a question about something related to the pointy end of an airplane? Ask Kent and maybe he’ll use it for next Friday’s Plane Answers feature.

Plane Answers: Breathe Normally?

by Kent Wien on

Welcome to Gadling’s feature, Plane Answers, where our resident airline pilot, Kent Wien, answers your questions about everything from takeoff to touchdown and beyond. Have a question of your own? Ask away!

Dr. Roland asks:

Hello Kent,

I’ve been flying for years and can’t get an answer to my question on the oxygen mask demo given by the flight attendants. Apparently, after you place the mask over your nose and mouth and breath normally–my favorite part–the plastic bag may not inflate. So why have this mask if it may or may not inflate!?

By now, we’ve all heard the flight attendants inform us that the bag on an oxygen mask may or may not inflate. But I really had to stop and think about why this is the case. In fact, since we use a completely different oxygen mask in the cockpit, it was time for a bit of research into the mechanics of a passenger mask.

It turns out that the oxygen flows continuously into your mask from chemically driven ‘oxygen generators’ as opposed to a tank of air. When you exhale, that oxygen would normally spill out the sides of the mask. So the bag is designed to collect the oxygen that isn’t being used while you exhale, which increases the total amount of oxygen available and corrects for irregularities in breathing. It does this with a one-way check valve that prevents the oxygen from leaving the bag and entering the mask while you’re exhaling.

David asks:

When I am flying commercially one thing I hate is the pain in my ears from the pressurization of the aircraft. I know it affects others too so I was wondering if pilots just don’t get it or if it stops happening once you are used to it, or do you just get so used to it that it stops bothering you?

I’ve had one painful encounter with a blocked sinus when I was fifteen, but I’ve never had an issue since I’ve used the valsalva maneuver.

For the climb out, there’s not much you should do except maybe yawn a bit and possibly chew some gum.

It’s mainly during the descent that you’ll need to head off any problems.

To do this, simply plug your nose and blow a bit once you sense that you’re starting down (usually 30 minutes out). Carefully hold your nose and blow gently to pop your ears at least until the airplane starts to slow. You’re home free once the airplane is below 10,000 feet, where the cabin altitude is now at sea level.

This technique should make a big difference for your next flight.

If you still have problems, bring some Afrin (an over the counter nasal decongestant) with you and use it about 45 minutes before descent or anytime you feel some pressure on the way down. I don’t normally like to use Afrin as it causes me to clog up more after a few hours, but it really helps in these temporary situations.

I haven’t run across many pilots with this issue, other than the occasional problem someone might have when flying with a cold. Perhaps it’s something that you get used to.

Do you have a question about something related to the pointy end of an airplane? Ask Kent and maybe he’ll use it for next Friday’s Plane Answers feature.

Plane Answers: A rant in favor of cell phones on airplanes

by Kent Wien on

Welcome to Gadling’s feature, Plane Answers, where our resident airline pilot, Kent Wien, answers your questions about everything from takeoff to touchdown and beyond. Have a question of your own? Ask away!

Bud vents a little frustration:

There is no data whatsoever that cell phones interfere with airplane navigation systems. In fact, there have been tests with cell phone signals amplified ten fold and without interference. So every time the flight attendent comes on the intercom and tells the cabin to turn off cell phones because “they may interfere” with the airplanes navigation system, I simply stop and think to myself, that if they would lie to me about something that doesn’t hurt at all, how much can they be trusted to tell me the truth about something that really might be harmful. I think that if you will lie about a small thing, you will lie about a big one. And since the Captain allows the lie to be broadcast, who can you really trust? Reminds me of the government agent arriving on a doorstep and saying “trust me, I’m here to help you!” Yeah! Right?

I don’t agree with your logic, Bud. The most frequently quoted study was done by Carnigie Mellon University in 2003. Their comprehensive findings were summarized as follows:
The key conclusions were that (1) onboard cellular telephone calls were observed in-flight and activity is appreciable; (2) signal activity was observed in the aviation critical frequency bands at field strengths capable of causing interference to onboard avionics; and (3) onboard spectral activity was observed at flight critical phases.

The entire report is fascinating, but if you don’t have the time to read it all, here is a short interview with Bill Strauss, the person responsible for the report. He found that 1/3 of the time cell phones were being used illegally inflight, their frequencies actually crossed into the GPS band.

The FAA mandates in FAR 91.21 that carriers restrict the use of non-approved electronics devices. Flight attendants are required to enforce these regulations, and even the inflight announcements restricting cell phone use made by the cabin crew must be signed off by the FAA. So, instead of lying to you, these flight attendants are complying with the regulations of their job.

To borrow your logic a bit, let’s imagine a flight attendant who skipped the cell phone announcement. What other parts of their job might they be neglecting? Can you then trust them to check their fire extinguisher, oxygen and escape slide pressures before departure?

It’s been the policy of each of the airlines I’ve worked for that pilots and flight attendants are to be truthful with passengers.

It doesn’t matter what the delay is, we will always try to give as much insight as possible into the reason. There’s honestly no incentive for us to tell passengers anything other than the truth.

The airline I currently work for decided to go through the long and costly process to demonstrate to the FAA that cell phone use after landing and while taxiing to the gate was safe.

The test involved filling every seat with a person using a cell phone from a variety of manufacturers on each of the airplanes the airline operated.

Little regard was given to GPS and ground-based navigation interference, since the airplane was simply taxiing to the gate. Subsequently, each airplane type at the company passed, except for one. When this airplane, an Airbus, was tested, for some reason the smoke detector in a lavatory would activate.

After further modifications, the FAA approved cell phone use while taxiing in for each one of our aircraft types. I realize this is anecdotal, but it does represent at least some sort of interference, I suppose.

In the past, the FCC banned cell phones inflight because they would interfere with the networks on the ground. According to the author of the Carnegie Mellon study:

The FCC feels it can probably lift the ban, even if there are problems of interference [on board airplanes]. They’re saying to FAA, “If you want a ban, that’s your territory.”

Europe has recently approved cell phone use inflight, but that’s still subject to the European Aviation Safety Agency determining that interference isn’t an issue. I suppose in the U.S. if the public demands the use of cell phones on an airplane (a big if) then it’s going to be up to the airlines to convince the FAA it’s safe.

But please don’t blame the pilots or the flight attendants for following the regulations that are currently in place.


Do you have a question about something related to the pointy end of an airplane? Ask Kent and maybe he’ll use it for next Friday’s Plane Answers feature.

Plane Answers: 767 winglets, flight directors and oceanic flying

by Kent Wien on

Welcome to Gadling’s feature, Plane Answers, where our resident airline pilot, Kent Wien, answers your questions about everything from takeoff to touchdown and beyond. Have a question of your own? Ask away!

Paul asks:

Hi Kent,

My question is about winglets. We see most of the RJ’s have winglets and many airlines are either retrofitting or purchasing their 757’s and 737’s to include winglets.

If these are such a performance enhancer and fuel saver, why don’t we see winglets on 767 and 777 aircraft? There are many of these aircraft in the air today so one might assume an opportunity for fuel reduction and cost savings is being lost. What’s your take on this?

That’s a very good point, Paul. I asked about the 777 a few years ago and I’ve been told that the wing design on the large Boeing won’t accept winglets. I’m not sure if it couldn’t handle them structurally or if the wing was already efficient enough that winglets wouldn’t help.

I do know that the wingspan of a 777 was a significant concern for airlines when they were planning the gate spacing before the airplane was delivered. Since the 757 with winglets has a 10 foot longer span, I would think it might be a problem with our infrastructure at certain airports.
American announced last year that they’d be retrofitting each of their 767’s to include winglets. We should see the first one modified by next year. Here are a few pictures of the first airplanes being converted.

Why didn’t they retrofit these airplanes sooner? Back in 2000, the 737 winglet conversion was just under $1 million dollars. With the recent jump in fuel prices, I’m sure the kits are a bit more expensive, but the 4% fuel savings would easily offset the conversion price.

Hi Kent –

Can you explain the flight director and how it is used by pilots?

Thanks, Ryan.

Sure, Ryan.

A flight director gives us information on the pitch or roll attitude needed during a particular phase of flight. It’s part of the autopilot system.

You can think of it as an indicator (made up of either “V” bars or crosshairs depending on the airplane) that shows the autopilot or even a pilot who happens to be hand-flying the airplane which way to turn and how much bank or climb is needed to turn, climb, speed up or slow down the airplane.

It’s kind of like having a person beside you saying, “OK, pitch it up to three degrees and bank 25 degrees and roll out on a 090 degree heading.” In level flight the flight director will show you the attitude required to hold an altitude.

Some pilots prefer to turn the flight director off and fly the airplane in a raw data mode, which means that they’ll decide when, where and how much they’ll pitch and roll.

Here’s a picture of the common “V” bar flight director displaying a turn:

And here’s the attitude indicator with the flight director off:

Hi Kent,

I had a question regarding oceanic travel. I am of the understanding that pretty much all traffic between North American and Europe goes through the North Atlantic Tracks using HF radio for positioning reports (or ACARS). How do aircraft going from North America to Africa, or S America to Europe cross the pond? Are there separate tracks/ oceanic FIRs for those specific routes? There are similar tracks for trans-pacific routings to Japan and Australia too correct?

Matt

Matt is talking about the five parallel routes that go across the Atlantic. These routes change twice a day to take advantage of favorable winds–once for the westbound morning/afternoon arrivals and again for the eastbound evening/night flights.

This track system is unique to the North Atlantic. If your flight happens to be going from New York to South Africa, there’s a chance you won’t be on the track system at all, but you will be flying what’s called a random route.

If this random route happens to cross one of the tracks, the airplane will be restricted from flying above FL 290 (Flight Level 290, or 29,000 feet essentially).

In the Pacific, there are tracks, but they don’t change on a daily basis and they’re made up of named waypoints instead of the coordinates that define the North Atlantic tracks.

Do you have a question about something related to the pointy end of an airplane? Ask Kent and maybe he’ll use it for next Friday’s Plane Answers feature.

Plane Answers: The outlook for pilot hiring

by Kent Wien on

Welcome to Gadling’s feature, Plane Answers, where our resident airline pilot, Kent Wien, answers your questions about everything from takeoff to touchdown and beyond. Have a question of your own? Ask away!

When I started Plane Answers a few months ago, one of the most common questions was how a person might go about learning to fly, getting their ratings and gaining enough experience to be noticed by an airline.

Before I’ve even had the chance to answer that, the industry has taken a sharp turn for the worse and now I’m getting questions about whether or not it’s even worth it to pursue a flying job.

Here are two such questions:

Michael asks:

I’ve been reading your column for a couple of weeks now, yet I haven’t noticed you talk about the state of the industry for college students who want to become professional pilots. I’m enrolled in a pilot training program at Arizona State, and on track to receiving an internship when I graduate. In your opinion, with the way the airline industry is now, do you think I should still pursue a career as an airline pilot?

And Steve asks:

Kent,

My grandson would love to be a airline pilot. He is building flight
time and attending college at the same time and it’s a very expensive
burden for the family. With the layoffs and pay cuts that pilots in
the industry are recently experiencing-is he wasting his time and our
money?
It’s feast or famine with regard to the cycles that define airline hiring in the U.S. Just last fall there was talk about how the pilot pool was drying up for some of the larger regional jet operators. A few of these airlines were reducing their experience requirements and snatching up pilots with less than 300 hours.

This trend seems to have come to a halt as we’ve moved into 2008, a year that’s seeing the highest fuel prices in the history of the industry. As airlines are coming to grips with the idea that oil prices aren’t coming down anytime soon, they’re pulling capacity out of their networks–most of which will start taking effect this fall.

The hope is of course, that airlines will be able to price their product at a level that exceeds their costs at some point in the near future. As long as the oil prices stabilize, they might be able to pull it off, but the ever-increasing fuel costs are making it difficult to price a product that may not be used until one to three months into the future.

Just as it’s hard to predict these costs, it’s even more difficult to predict which way pilot hiring may go, especially in two, three or four years from now. In Michael’s case, he’s well along through the program, and I think he might want to see this investment through. He may have to do something else on the side until he gets a chance to instruct or fly for a regional airline once things improve. But he probably shouldn’t give up.

The same might be said about Steve’s grandson. He’s well along on the commitment to flying. If you’re thinking he may be able to pay back his loans quickly once he lands a cushy airline pilot job, you might want to familiarize yourself with some of the pay at most companies.

Airline Pilot Central, a website that offers details on pilot pay, minimum hiring requirements and the current hiring status of companies, is a good source for hourly pay rates. Remember, pilots and flight attendants are only paid for the time the airplane is pushing away from the gate to the time it’s back at the gate at the destination.

This industry does have a way of spitting out some people who were unfortunate in their timing. I know a few who are looking at their second furlough, and are considering taking a job outside of aviation permanently.

When pilots were being recalled last year, it wasn’t uncommon for an airline to see 30% of those pilots recalled decline the option to come back since they found employment with other airlines or outside of the industry.

But if this is what you’ve always wanted to do, and you don’t think you’ll be happy doing anything else, then stick with it. I’m relatively certain that someone will be flying airplanes in the future, and they’ll need pilots.

Just try to load your resume up with extra ratings, (a float rating, sailplane license, a specific jet type rating) to stand out from the rest. The internship that Michael is pursuing is a fantastic example.

Good luck!

Do you have a question about something related to the pointy end of an airplane? Ask Kent and maybe he’ll use it for next Friday’s Plane Answers feature.