Cockpit Chronicles: Alaska flying – then and now

Last week I found myself flying to London with a captain who had started his career in pretty much the same way I did-he too had worked for a couple of airlines in Alaska, albeit more than a decade before me.

As we headed out to dinner, we happened to run into another pilot I knew who, coincidentally, flew for Era Alaska just as I had. Even more surprising was that his co-pilot flew for an airline in the Northwest Territories of Canada.

We agreed to have dinner together at an Indian restaurant ten minutes from the hotel in London. While waiting for some tandoori to arrive, the subject of the Discovery Channel show, Flying Wild Alaska came up. It led to a few wistful stories about the times when we were doing that kind of flying, twenty to thirty years earlier.

“It looks like a lot of fun and adventure from the comfort of your living room, but it’s not as much fun when you’re low on gas, in a mile visibility while trying to read a map and hoping to cut the Mead River. It makes you appreciate this job (flying a Boeing across the Atlantic to London) so much more,” Hank said.

We all agreed. It’s nice to get a little perspective every now and then, and the Discovery Channel show about flying in the Alaskan bush gave us a not so gentle reminder.

But then someone began to check off the items a modern-day bush pilot has that we didn’t back then. At the top of the list was a GPS. While I had flown with a Loran-C for navigation, its accuracy up north wasn’t anything like the GPS. The other pilots at the table didn’t even have a Loran.

“Just a compass and a map up on the north slope.” Hank said.

Next up, I mentioned the real de-icing equipment they have now, not to mention the hangars. Just a few hours earlier I had been writing the de-icing post for Gadling, so the memories of crawling on the curved and slippery wing twelve feet in the air while scraping the ice off were fresh in my mind. Our de-ice ‘equipment’ at the time was a pump bottle you’d find at a garden store.

As tough as we had it, I imagined inviting perhaps another four pilots back from the past to join us. They would be the early bush pilots of the twenties and thirties who would have given anything to have the airplanes we had. So in deference to them, I thought I’d use a few of my grandpa’s photos to illustrate the differences in air travel in Alaska back then and today.

RUNWAYS


Gravel bars, while sometimes rough, were a preferred summertime runway.

During the first few years of flying in Alaska, there were no official runways. The most ideal landing spot was in Fairbanks, where flying really took hold, at a horse track that was converted into a landing strip. Outside of Fairbanks, landings were made in the summer on gravel bars along rivers or ‘domes’ which were treeless hill tops above a village. Locals made attempts at clearing runways, but their lengths were initially too short or had too many obstacles.
A few towns, such as Nome and Kotzebue were essentially treeless, but runways still needed to be built to accomodate airplanes on wheels since the ground was usually soft in the summer.

Winter flying opened up a lot of areas to landing, especially for airplanes equipped with skis. One concern was at the beginning and end of the season; when a decision had to be made whether to depart with skis or wheels. It wasn’t always obvious how much snow the destination airport would have. The short days in the winter presented a problem as well, since there was no lighting to mark the frozen ‘runway.’

What should we go with today, skis or wheels?

Airplanes with floats became an option starting in the thirties and that combination continues today as a popular way to get around during the five or so months out of the year that allow for it.


Bellanca float plane on the Chena river in Fairbanks in the ’30s

Today the main cities and towns all have runways that are lighted and plowed. So ski flying is used mainly for off-airport operations onto lakes, glaciers and even arctic ice-flows. But the airplane is still the most vital way to move about the state, as few towns outside of Anchorage and Fairbanks are connected by roads.

Kenai, Alaska airport today. Note the float plane ‘strip’ next to the paved runway.

AIRPLANES

Open cockpit flying

Aside from the landing gear choice, a huge number of changes have come about since the early days of flying in Alaska. In 1924, my grandpa, Noel Wien, was operating out of Fairbanks with an open cockpit biplane called a Hisso Standard that could seat two crammed-in passengers in the front seat. They were required to dress as if they were taking a long winter dog-sled ride, as the wind chill, even at 50 degrees fahrenheit, was bone chilling. This, coupled with the air-cooled engine, prevented year-round flying.


Note the two passengers in the front seat. Legroom wasn’t a complaint back then.


Passengers had to bundle up even in the summer when flying in the open-cockpit Standard


Heated, pressurized cabins make it possible to get around in a t-shirt for many passengers.

In winter of 1925, my grandpa toured the states to look for an air-cooled, fully enclosed cabin airplane that would be capable of flying through an Alaskan winter.

Unfortunately, that airplane didn’t exist yet in America. After visiting several manufacturers who insisted they’d have just such an airplane in another year, Noel settled on a Fokker F.III he found in New York. It had no brakes, the pilot sat outside and the engine was still water-cooled. However, the passengers would ride enclosed in a cabin inspired by a Pullman-train that included upholstered couch type seats, and curtains. At least the passengers would be warm. He operated that airplane for the next two winters before a fully enclosed cabin aircraft with air-cooled engines became available.


The first enclosed-cabin air service in Alaska. Although the pilot still sat in the open.


Passengers rode inside in leather armchair style seats

Today travelers flying in Alaska may find themselves tucked in a Cessna with fold down seats and freight strapped down next to them, or they might have the opportunity to fly between the major cities in an Alaska Airlines 737 “combi” configuration that places the freight in the front separated with a wall from the abbreviated passenger cabin.


Passengers behind a wall and freight in front on this Alaska 737 “Combi”

Turboprop aircraft like the Dash-8 and Beech 1900 are a common way to get people and freight around between the towns as well.


An Era Alaska Beech 1900 is loaded with freight from a dogsled

Performance

The 150 h.p. Hisso engine mounted to the large WWI Standard trainer provided enough horsepower to get out of some short strips, but only when the airplane wasn’t carrying a lot of weight. I ran across this video from 1927 that shows my grandpa departing Nome in a fully loaded Standard. I was a bit shocked at the lack of performance.

Compare that to a recent bush pilot competition in Valdez where highly modified Super Cubs and Maules compete for the shortest takeoff roll. Granted, the pilots are flying empty airplanes with a bit of a headwind, but my grandpa would have given anything for this kind of bush plane.

Reliability

The OX-5 and Hisso engines were able to fly between 50 and 300 hours before requiring an overhaul. My grandpa found that he could get closer to the 300 hour time if he changed the oil every five hours (essentially after each trip).

Today, the piston engines flown in Cessna 207s can go for 2,000 hours before an overhaul and the 1,100 horsepower turbine engines in a Beech 1900 can fly for 6,000 hours before being rebuilt.

Continue reading Part 2: Navigation, search and rescue, ticket prices and what HASN’T changed…

Hot coffee hijacks United Airlines plane?!

Drinking and driving is a problem … and drinking and flying is no different. A United Airlines pilot found this out the hard way: he spilled his coffee, which triggered a hijacking alert. So, United Flight 940, which was set to go from Chicago to Frankfurt, Germany, had to dash across the border to Canada for an unscheduled stop.

A hijacking alert can have that effect, you know.

The plane landed safely in Toronto, an emergency was declared and the defense department in Canada was notified. In the end, everything was sorted out

Hey, buddy: ever heard of a travel mug?

[photo by dimnikolov via Flickr]

Ryanair insanity: Captain Morgan suggests mutiny, ordered to Lithuania

If I could make this stuff up, I’d become a novelist. Seriously.

Captain Morgan Fischer, a pilot with Ryanair, decided to try out the type of stunt for which his boss, Michael O’Leary, is famous. And, he learned what happens when you tangle with a master media whore.

Apparently implying that O’Leary is a moron, Fischer took public issue with the company CEO’s notion that a co-pilot could be swapped out with a flight attendant. So, he suggested that O’Leary be replaced with someone from that pool of employees, specifically a “probationary cabin crew member currently earning €13,200 a year.”

I’m starting to believe that O’Leary is thin-skinned.

After taking a potshot at the Ryanair top dog, any hope Captain Morgan had of landing someplace warm was dashed. Rather, according to the Guardian, he “was offered a transfer to Kaunas in Lithuania after Ryanair announced the closure of operations in Marseille, where the pilot is based.”

Keep in mind that Fischer, an American, is “embroiled in a contractual dispute with the airline and, according to Ryanair, did not submit a request for a reassignment destination.” Unlike the other pilots in his situation, he won’t be able to score a new spot in a place like Spain, Portugal or Italy.

There’s a bit of extra significance here, because “Kaunas is considered Siberia for Ryanair pilots.” That only leaves one question: is Ryanair considered Siberia for pilots at other airlines?

%Gallery-51515%

[photo by MarkScottAustinTX via Flickr]

Plane Answers: What kind of math skills are needed to become a pilot?

Zach asks:

Hello First Officer Kent!

It has been my dream since early childhood to earn a private pilot’s certificate. For a number of reasons–both financial and otherwise–it is only now (pushing age 30) that I am able to seriously begin the process of choosing a flight school and creating a road map to the goal of earning the license (while I would love to work as an airline pilot, I am content to keep my less interesting day job and fly as a pure hobbyist).

The only potential barrier that I can envision is what I fear to be a lack of the necessary math acumen to be successful. I am simply intimidated by any math more complicated than very basic algebra, and while this is something that I believe I can overcome, I wonder how it will impact my ability to earn a private pilot’s certificate. How much and what type of math is necessary to know in order to reach this goal? Should I brush up on any particular area of mathematics before starting my flight training?

Hi Zach,

I have good news for you.

You’re not the first to ask me this question, so I imagine many others have this impression as well. Perhaps it’s fueled by a few math teachers who may use occupations like flying as a carrot to get their students to study more. But there isn’t anything even approaching basic algebra required to get your licenses, even up to the ATP level.

I was admittedly horrible at math and struggled with it all the way through college. Not a pretty sight. Since college, I haven’t even thought about algebraic equations. Frankly, the most complicated math I do today is figuring out the time for the crew rest periods when crossing the Atlantic with three pilots. Fortunately, there’s even an app for that.

That said, it was my ability to complete the required math courses that allowed me to get through college. And college has been necessary to land a job at a major airline. But that doesn’t seem to be your goal at this point.

Hope you do take up your dream!

Michael asks:

Kent,

I was talking with a pilot from a different airline than yours and he was saying that at his company they now prefer to use idle reverse thrust. I’m wondering why this would be (versus revving those bad boys up in max reverse)? Why not just leave the throttles at complete idle? Does reverse idle do much for deceleration versus complete idle?

Hi Michael,

Many airports, such as Manchester and London, are requiring idle reverse be used in the mornings due to noise restrictions. I actually prefer that, because passengers seem to enjoy the quiet, calm landings. Typically reverse thrust will shorten your landing distance by only 400 feet depending on the conditions.


Given plenty of runway, idle reverse landings are rather nice. But there are tradeoffs. Avoiding maximum reverse thrust does wear the brakes out faster. But there may be fuel and engine savings associated with idle reverse.

When the engines are at idle they actually produces a bit of thrust. So idle revers blocks that residual thrust and pushes it forward giving you some extra stopping power at no cost while in idle reverse.

Tom asks:

While I was looking at some Boeing posters of widebody aircraft in school–a 767/757 and up and I’ve noticed there are three autopilots. A left, center, and right. What is the point of three? Is it just for redundancy?


Hi Tom,

The three autopilots are used at the same time only on aircraft that are certified for autolands, which are used in extremely low visibility landings.


The autopilots are all selected just before shooting the approach and they become independent at 1500 feet, all the way to the ground. This way, if one electrical source is ever lost, the airplane can continue.

Other Boeings that don’t have autoland capability may still have three autopilots, but they aren’t selected at the same time. They’re just cycled through at the beginning of each flight so they see an even amount of use. So yes, on those aircraft they would be there solely for redundancy.


Do you have a question about something related to the pointy end of an airplane? Ask Kent and maybe he’ll use it for the next Plane Answers. Check out his other blog, Cockpit Chronicles and travel along with him at work. Twitter @veryjr

Pilot body scans and counter-terror operations: distant consideration for special forces

The uproar over TSA body scanners and pat-downs has hit every corner of the aviation world, from passengers to pilots. The vocal consensus, at least, is that nobody likes them, even though 64 percent of Americans support the practice and 70 percent don’t expect it to impact their travel. A friend of mine, flying today, tweeted that he made it through security at New York’s JFK airport in a mere nine minutes.

Nonetheless, flight crews have voiced vehement opposition to the scans, with one pilot becoming an overnight celebrity by refusing to submit himself to that or a pat-down. We all have to do it, though, so this has left me to ponder … what’s the big deal?

I’ve been particularly intrigued by the attitude of pilots toward body scanners. At first blush, it struck me as a privileged perspective: the top dogs on the plane felt as though they shouldn’t have to be subjected to the same scrutiny as the rest of us. Patrick Smith, resident pilot at Salon.com, wrote of the recent TSA change over crew scrutiny, in which “airline pilots will no longer be subject to the backscatter body scanners and invasive pat-downs at TSA airport checkpoints”:


For pilots like myself this is good news, though at least for the time being we remain subject to the rest of the checkpoint inspection, including the X-raying of luggage and the metal detector walk-through. Eventually, we are told, the implementation of so-called CrewPASS will allow us to skirt the checkpoint more or less entirely.

He continues:

Not everybody agrees that air crews deserve this special treatment. That’s not an unreasonable point of view, and I don’t disagree with it, necessarily. As security experts like Bruce Schneier point out, if you are going to screen at all, it is important to screen everybody, lest the system become overly complicated and prone to exploitable loopholes.

This made me wonder, what is the risk associated with not screening pilots as intensively? The only scenario that came to mind involved a terrorist incident. As I let my mind race, I constructed a hypothetical situation in which terrorists got on board a plane, took control and asked for demands of some sort – i.e., they wanted more than to cause death and destruction. In this situation, I suspected, counter-terrorist teams, such as 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta (1st SFOD-D, also known as “Delta Force”), would be called into play.

My thinking continued: if a pilot hadn’t been scanned, he could have brought a weapon … which could have been taken from him by terrorists. Would the special forces teams want to know if a pilot had been scanned?

As I continued through my hypothetical exercise, I could hear my platoon sergeant’s voice from close to 15 years ago, drilling me from across time: “Actions on the objective,” he used to say, “always spend most of your time rehearsing actions on the objective.”

You have to admit this about military training, it really sticks with you!

So, my first thought was whether, while rehearsing actions on the objective, the special forces teams would want to know every last detail of what was on the plane. My training falls far, far short of that, and my efforts to reach someone from 1st SFOD-D didn’t pan out (unsurprisingly).

Fortunately, I knew a great person to call: Don Shipley, Senior Chief (Retired), U.S. Navy. Now, Shiply runs Extreme SEAL Experience, a destination program that simulates various aspects of Navy SEAL training. Before that, of course, he lived the life, having served with SEAL Team ONE and SEAL Team TWO.

I laid out my hypothetical for Shipley: during mission planning, would the operators want to know if the pilots had been scanned, at least to have a better sense of whether they’d carried any weapons on the plane?

The answer, quite simply, is that it wouldn’t be an immediate concern. I spoke with Shipley by phone today, and he said that whether the pilots had been scanned “would be a very distant ‘what if’.” He explained of the special forces teams, “They’d want to know who they [i.e., the crew] are,” as well as background on how long they’d been flying and any other information related to the incident. Also, Shipley said the teams would want to know if there was an air marshal on the flight. The role of body scans, however, would not be a major factor in planning or rehearsing an operation.

“There are some pretty good people in charge of those planes,” Shipley noted, “good bunch of guys and gals.”

Does it suck that someone else gets to go through security faster and more easily than you do? Yeah, it feels like an injustice. But, let’s be realistic: there really isn’t much at stake here aside from a sense of fairness. Let’s e smart about this, though. The airline industry – and the air travel experience – is fraught with inefficiency. If we can make the operation a little smoother by giving the crew an easier time of getting to work, let’s just bite the bullet on this issue.

[photo courtesy of Extreme SEAL Experience]