landing a real airliner.

Doug Taylor said:
No, the 727-200 was not during my tenure as a flight engineer, it was "somewhere else".

You paid for time??

I saw a shot it looked good so I took it - I know exactly where you got the time. Hey as you say network, network, network.
 
I_Money said:
I saw a shot it looked good so I took it - I know exactly where you got the time. Hey as you say network, network, network.

"You broke a MAJOR rule of engagement, Maverick! The hard deck is there for your safety."
 
Bigey said:
Just clearing it up, im not speaking for myself, but rather someone who flies the actual plane.

Hard for me to fly a airliner? Absolutely, can barely get it on the ground, and that's after being guided EVERY step.

Hard for an actual airline pilot? I wouldnt think it's that hard for them. They understand what's going on, how to fly it, and the things required to fly it.

I've personally been told by a Delta Captain, that the '67 (767) is an easy plane to fly.

So excuse me for my ignorance.


I find that the 757/767 requires an astute descent plan...it will not go down and slow down very easy. Nowadays...with all eyes on fuel efficiency...the flaps are only supposed to be extended at the miminum maneuver speeds...which can be very difficult to get to. If you screw up and have to get the flaps out earlier...the Flaps 1,5 and 15 settings are pretty low...230,210 and 200 respectively...so if you start a late descent at 250 KIAS and are working towards the OM...you are pretty much screwed...you're going to have a hard time getting it slowed in the descent.

The Maddog was much more fun to fly in the descent to the OM...you could keep it fast and clean until a 10 mile final...cut the power...sequence in the flaps and be configured and on speed at 1000'AGL...all with a continuous descent. I find you must be configured and stabilized much earlier in the 75/76 because it takes longer to get in that position. From that standpoint...it's not as easy to fly as some of the smaller airplanes I've flown. Runway performance, though, takeoff and landing...is the best I've ever flown.

The landings are much more seat of the pants...and require a kinesthetic feel. You will feel the need to add/reduce power, add/reduce backpressure, feed in the rudder, etc, etc, etc...using "feel" a couple of seconds before your instruments tell you what's going on with the airplane. It can take a few hundred hours before you really get a good feel at anticipating how the airplane will react in the landing flare. And all airplanes are little different.

One big problem the C152 pilot will have when he goes up to save the day in the 747 is the difference in power generation. In the C152...power is measured by RPM...and changes in power are immediately felt...and 'heard' allowing those senses to interact immediately in controlling the airplane. In the 747...power will be measured by EPR and N1...and this will not mean much to the C152 guy. Also...power changes will not be felt immediately which could lead to some confusion...also there will be no sense of 'hearing' the engines respond to power changes...which is a little strange until you get used to it. If you get low and slow with the power at idle...it could be unrecoverable.
 
Doug Taylor said:
"You broke a MAJOR rule of engagement, Maverick! The hard deck is there for your safety."

doug, doug, doug
there will be no butchering of top gun quotes on my watch....

"you took it! and broke....."
 
B767Driver said:
One big problem the C152 pilot will have when he goes up to save the day in the 747 is the difference in power generation. In the C152...power is measured by RPM...and changes in power are immediately felt...and 'heard' allowing those senses to interact immediately in controlling the airplane. In the 747...power will be measured by EPR and N1...and this will not mean much to the C152 guy. Also...power changes will not be felt immediately which could lead to some confusion...also there will be no sense of 'hearing' the engines respond to power changes...which is a little strange until you get used to it. If you get low and slow with the power at idle...it could be unrecoverable.

Yeah, the 777 sim instructor at United told me that if you fly through a microburst in an airliner and find out too late, you may be able to "try" and fix it in time but your engines will take longer to spool up and deliver the amount of power that you will need to get out of it. In a Cessna, you push the throttle in and you have full power right there. Huge difference!
 
Timbuff10 said:
Yeah, the 777 sim instructor at United told me that if you fly through a microburst in an airliner and find out too late, you may be able to "try" and fix it in time but your engines will take longer to spool up and deliver the amount of power that you will need to get out of it. In a Cessna, you push the throttle in and you have full power right there. Huge difference!

:yeahthat:

The 737-200 sim was very humbling. I heard the sink rate, flat warning, and I was like, okay, add a little power.....oh, crap.....more power.....I ended up firewalling the thing and still landed hard.
 
tonyw said:
:yeahthat:

The 737-200 sim was very humbling. I heard the sink rate, flat warning, and I was like, okay, add a little power.....oh, crap.....more power.....I ended up firewalling the thing and still landed hard.

And then the fun begins when you do touch down the the engines are spooling up instead of down.
speechless-smiley-040.gif
 
BobDDuck said:
And then the fun begins when you do touch down the the engines are spooling up instead of down.
speechless-smiley-040.gif

I think that's when they'd have to pipe in the Airbus "retard" voice. Only he wouldn't be telling me to retard the engines, he'd be calling me a retard.:)
 
tonyw said:
The 737-200 sim was very humbling. I heard the sink rate, flat warning, and I was like, okay, add a little power.....oh, crap.....more power.....I ended up firewalling the thing and still landed hard.

The actual airplane is hands down the easiest airplane to land I ever flew. And most who flew it will agree.
 
Doug Taylor said:
The 88/90 annunciates "FLAR RETD" on autolands! :)


That's funny. The 767 is a little nicer...it just posts..."Flare...Rollout...Idle".

BTW, I'd have a hell of a time landing the 767 without the automated 30' callout. I suspect most guys would agree.
 
A few years ago flying a mix between AHRS -88's and 88's/90's with the IRU's one captain got used to hearing the 50..40...30..20...10 call. So we go zipping into LGA with an AHRS 88 and I remember thinking, 'I don't think the skipper is going to flare' then BUH-BAAAM!

"Daggummit, I was waiting for the altitude callouts"
 
Doug Taylor said:
A few years ago flying a mix between AHRS -88's and 88's/90's with the IRU's one captain got used to hearing the 50..40...30..20...10 call. So we go zipping into LGA with an AHRS 88 and I remember thinking, 'I don't think the skipper is going to flare' then BUH-BAAAM!

"Daggummit, I was waiting for the altitude callouts"

So....do you guys just sort of hang out in the flight deck and um...write stuff down or somthing until the pax deplane? Or, does skipper make you stand out there and take the blame?:)
 
Most captains I've flown with don't really worry about the passengers too much (unless they are single and they see a rather attractive one boarding) but the ones that do generally subscribe to the "you land, you stand" way of life.

As far as bad landings go... on the CRJ there is an arrow on the PFD that points to which side the autopilot is coupled to. Normally this would be the flying pilot as well. If I have a bad landing I tend to make sure I reset the arrow for the next leg before the door opens and the FA comes up to see who just shortned all the passengers by a few inches.
 
AP2B said:
So....do you guys just sort of hang out in the flight deck and um...write stuff down or somthing until the pax deplane? Or, does skipper make you stand out there and take the blame?:)

You land you stand!

Between flights is pretty busy. You're cleaning up the cockpit from the last leg, reprogramming the FMS, doing the interior preflight and whatnot.

If you land in a hub city, chances are you're packing up your crap to lug it to another gate.
 
On a sub-note here, and not intending to offend anyone, but where did this term "airliners" come from? I know it is never used among pilots that fly large jet transports, at least not anytime that I've heard. It is such an odd term to me, I have never been able to get used to it. Sort of like calling an airplane a "bird", which somehow comes across odd to me as well, in this day and age, reminds me of a term they'd have an actor say in a Hollywood movie.

Maybe it's just me, and I have never bothered to comment on this issue before, in writing or in person, but it just occurred to me. Sort of like people using the word "tarmac" like it means something special that is aviation related.
 
on a flight from aspen to dfw on a 757..... flared about 10 feet off the ground, everyone knew something was up and was about to say oh ******E*R&#*&*F& when we slammed into the ground so hard. lights went off, couple oxy masks deployed. it was awesome. on the way out... cockpit door CLOSED AND the pilots COWERING IN THEIR FAILURE!
 
Back
Top