[zx10guy]

While I'm over the countless drag racing videos, this one is unique. Never seen a drag race between two RC jet planes and a Mclaren. Also later in the video, some of these RC operators have some amazing skills.

[Lady Jane]

Stratolaunch by Scale Composites.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

Yeah they are small, bit weird too in terms of long haul volume. Isn't it weird that seniority doesn't translate airline to airline, especially if it's on the same bird?

You'd think that would make sense, but it just doesn't work that way.

You'd have to have a National Seniority List, and don't forget that you have labor issues as well-- ALPA, SWAPA, APA, etc. just for starters. The Unions have a LOT to say about labor issues. And each individual airline has its own contract, in addition to FAA rules/regulations.

I've been at a Major airline for over 25 years. I'm reasonably senior (~37% in seat/fleet/base) in the left seat of a 737. I'm a Line Check Pilot (think instructor/examiner in the jet).

With somewhere north of 18000 hours, if I had a wild hare and decided I wanted to go to (for example) SWA tomorrow since they fly the same plane, I certainly could apply to interview.

Assuming they hired me, I'd start Day One in the right seat as the most junior First Officer in the company-- my previous experience in the 737 means NOTHING, other than training would be a breeze. If SWA furloughed, I'd be the first one let go. If my company furloughed, they'd have to furlough 10,000 other pilots to get to me.

That's just how the system works.

Which is right now why every airline out there is fighting for the same exact pool of pilots--- it's DEFINITELY a pilot's market. It's just not money to look at as well, it's Quality of Life rules (how each contract is interpreted), potential for future growth, and crew bases where you can live if you don't want to Commute. Want to live in Dallas? AA. Atlanta? DAL. DEN? F9, UA or SWA. Want to fly international wide body? Domestic on the same jet for the rest of your life? Decisions, decisions, decisions.

It's sort of (perhaps) an overly complicated system, but it is what it is.

R.

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

Assuming they hired me, I'd start Day One in the right seat as the most junior First Officer in the company-- my previous experience in the 737 means NOTHING, other than training would be a breeze. If SWA furloughed, I'd be the first one let go. If my company furloughed, they'd have to furlough 10,000 other pilots to get to me.

That's just how the system works.

I am clearly a layman but that strikes me as totally bonkers. God i hate unions, i really do.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

Flown 'em both, like 'em both.

Put it this way: I drive a 737, and every car I've owned has had a MT with the fewest bells and whistles I could get-- in other words, minimal automation.

My best friend? Is a left-seater on the 320 and he drives (and raves and RAVES about) a Tesla.

Neither of us would trade seats.

That pretty much sums it up. The 737 is one of the last aircraft that you really can "fly"-- the automation is... ok, fairly basic, and will (mostly) do what you want it to do, but you have to keep an eye on it. But at the end of the day, you're working pretty hard to get the jet to do what you want-- at least compared to the newer jets (i.e. pretty much anything else out there with wings). Yes, that Max9 that you're driving might have rolled off the assembly line a month ago, but at its heart, it's still the flower of mid-1960's technology. Basically? It's the golden retriever of the airline world-- it's got a good heart, but is dumb as a post.

The Bus? Great airplane-- and specifically designed for "Third-World" markets in that it does a pretty good job taking the pilot out of the equation-- the joke's always been that you're a "non-voting member of the board". That's not a bad thing. It's a LOT more comfortable from a pilot (and passenger) perspective but I always found it to feel a little... disconnected. Sort of like you're playing a video game instead of pushing a jet through the sky.

Our Senior Manager of Training had a pretty good quote at the last Standards Meeting-- "Do you want to *fly* the jet, or do you want to go for an airplane ride?"

I thought he had a good point. Guys love or hate either. There are pro's and con's to each. I'll easily admit that I work FAR harder moving the jet than my Bus Bud, but I also like the fact that if things go to hell, I can kill *ALL* of the magic and hand fly the jet with no computers in the way. To me, there's value in that. I don't want a computer to say "No, I don't think you should do that", even if I'm seconds from putting it in the dirt and trying to pull off a "Hail Mary".

R.

thanks for this... great explanation...

like you said, the 737 is just older... and that's why the taller and more stretchable a320 has been doing so well the past few years.

Also... golden retrievers are 4th in the breed intelligence ranking

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by ASAP

Also... golden retrievers are 4th in the breed intelligence ranking

I can only go from the one my buddy's had. Great dog, but would run into wall occasionally by accident and be TOTALLY surprised. NOT the sharpest knife in the drawer.

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

Yup, the dreaded RNAV Arrival into LAX-- it works great with the speed and altitude constraints that are published. The fun begins when ATC starts commanding slowdowns from 280 to 250 or 210-- because the profile is so tight, it's a real bugger to figure out how to dump a bucket of 30-70 knots of energy-- it can be a challenge-- fun if you're an old guy, a little terrifying if you're a noob.

In your example, I'd fault the Line Check Captain. Part of a left-seater's job is mentorship-- ESPECIALLY as a Check Airman. If you see the arrival going south, it's incumbent to you to (nicely) use it as a teaching moment and suggest ways/tips/techniques to fix the problem. If that doesn't work, then you (slightly less nicely) *command* how to fix the problem. And if that doesn't work? You take the jet and discuss it after you're on the ground.

In addition to allowing the FO to put you in an unsafe position, a Go-Around costs time and money-- the peeps in the back are paying you to get them there safely and on-time. A Go-Around is going to eat 80-250 gallons of fuel (aircraft dependent) and kill 15-20 minutes of time that could be spent getting the passengers to the Gate. A good LCA doesn't let it get that far.

Just my 0.02.

R.

The Line Check Captain called for increased thrust 3 times before he intervened. The new FO froze.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by 3.0L

The Line Check Captain called for increased thrust 3 times before he intervened. The new FO froze.

Yikes. Three times is a little excessive. Three times being ignored (as both the PIC *and* the LCA) is pushing towards unsafe.

You're at the point of intervention after this happens-- there would be a lot going through my head; is it a communications issue between pilots? Is there a medical issue (micro-stroke for example)? Loss of cognitive function for whatever reason? Or is the FO simply overwhelmed with all that's going on at the moment? (Sim environment vs. actual aircraft environment is a VERY different thing from a dynamic operational standpoint).

Whatever the reason, I'd still expect the LCA to be either a) VERY directive ("Add thrust NOW") or to take the aircraft ("I have the aircraft, landing") and correct the UAS (Undesirable Aircraft State). You can deal with the situation with an extensive debrief/documentation after getting to the gate.

That being said, I've been there-- and things can go from "We're five by five" to "WTF is happening" in the space of a few heartbeats-- I've seen it go from a low workload to being absolutely overwhelming in literally a few seconds (regardless of pilot background)-- which is why flying high-performance jets takes so much training, and why LCA's are usually the most screened, experienced, trained, etc.

Not a fun situation to be in, no matter how you look at it.

R.

[MKSixer]

Pretty accurate, I'd say...

[ASAP]

Ah the old A10 workhorse...

Is the F35 even used in combat lmao? It's a colossal waste of $ so far just like the F22.

[Chick Webb]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

This really has a lot of complex issues that you could write a doctoral dissertation on.

A few overall things to consider:

6. Military pilots are drying up for a few reasons: There are a LOT fewer cockpits/aircraft in the military nowadays, so there are a lot fewer active-duty pilots. The pilot-training commitment is currently (I think?) 10 years AFTER you graduate from pilot training-- which means you're stuck for 11 years. The kicker is every single time you do something (change bases, planes, go to school, upgrade), you incur additional commitment-- sometimes they run concurrently, sometimes you get caught you have no choice but to extend past your 11 years-- it can get complicated and you can get stuck for 15 or more years-- at which point, you might as well stay to 20 and get the retirement.

One contributor to the "fewer cockpits" phenomenon, which is real, is the increased use of drones. This is particularly true in the Air Force, and is also coming to the Navy; they've already done carrier ops with a refueling drone. Army/Marines, not so much, since much of the flying they do is in direct support of troops and that's going to remain a hands-on task for a while.

As to timing, I don't think it's necessarily as long as you suggest. My Marine son graduated from the USNA in '17 and got his wings in 2019, which is when the clock started on his committment. Initially it was 6 years, I think, but went to 7 since he got selected for C-130s. So, if he just sticks to that and doesn't re-up he should be out in late 2026.

One of his squadron buddies just finished his 7 and is headed directly to Delta as an FO, which I think speaks to the shortage. Not that he's not qualified, but by historical standards doesn't have the hours.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Chick Webb

One contributor to the "fewer cockpits" phenomenon, which is real, is the increased use of drones. This is particularly true in the Air Force, and is also coming to the Navy; they've already done carrier ops with a refueling drone. Army/Marines, not so much, since much of the flying they do is in direct support of troops and that's going to remain a hands-on task for a while.

As to timing, I don't think it's necessarily as long as you suggest. My Marine son graduated from the USNA in '17 and got his wings in 2019, which is when the clock started on his committment. Initially it was 6 years, I think, but went to 7 since he got selected for C-130s. So, if he just sticks to that and doesn't re-up he should be out in late 2026.

One of his squadron buddies just finished his 7 and is headed directly to Delta as an FO, which I think speaks to the shortage. Not that he's not qualified, but by historical standards doesn't have the hours.

I can't speak to other services, but the USAF UPT commitment is 10 years following UPT graduation (this is for pilots, other ratings are a bit different); UPT's a year, so you're looking at 11 years as the earliest you can get out (although there are a few ways around that- Palace Chase as an example). When you add PCS/School/MWS commitments, you can easily add another four years if the timing doesn't work out right.

Not quite sure what you mean by "he doesn't have the hours"-- NONE of the Majors do "Direct Entry" hires to Captain. Even if you're Chuck Yeager, you start at the bottom as an FO. That was one of the weirder things for me to wrap my head around; for the most part, the Military upgrades on merit (Copilot/First Pilot/Aircraft Commander/Instructor/Examiner/Stan-Eval as an example). The airlines are SOLELY about date of hire. If you can hold the bid, you get it, regardless of previous experience or ability.

I pretty much tell all of my FO's who have a military background: STAY IN THE GUARD/RESERVES. Getting your 20 isn't that hard, it's furlough protection, Mil Leave is a beautiful thing as a junior airline pilot, and the payoff is well worth it-- retire as an O-5, ~$4000/month and Tricare For Life starting at age 60-- for the rest of your life until you shuffle off this mortal coil. Not a bad deal.
R.

[Chick Webb]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

Not quite sure what you mean by "he doesn't have the hours"-- NONE of the Majors do "Direct Entry" hires to Captain.

WRT qualification, I simply meant that his hours are lower than what would have qualified you to be even a FO for a major in years past, according to my son.

[Lady Jane]

Miles M. 39B.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_M.39B_Libellula

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Chick Webb

WRT qualification, I simply meant that his hours are lower than what would have qualified you to be even a FO for a major in years past, according to my son.

Ah, that makes more sense-- I'm currently seeing New Hires at my Major with ~2300 hours TT and zero PIC. When I got hired in the late '90's it was closer to ~5000 hours with a ~2000 hours PIC.

[Lady Jane]

KYUSHU J7W SHINDEN


https://tvd.im/aviation/1217-kyushu-...lightning.html

[Jbrown7403]

My favorite WWII fighter when I was a kiddo! The fork-tailed devil, Lockheed Martin P-38 Lightning!

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

...(Sim environment vs. actual aircraft environment is a VERY different thing from a dynamic operational standpoint)....
R.

One of the 1st things we would tell trainees when they got out of the lab was to forget everything you thought you learned. We're now going to teach you how to do it "right." The simulations are way to consistent and could be easily memorized.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

One of the 1st things we would tell trainees when they got out of the lab was to forget everything you thought you learned. We're now going to teach you how to do it "right." The simulations are way to consistent and could be easily memorized.

The sim is a great tool for teaching switchology, flows, standard operating procedures (SOP), checklist discipline, the mechanics of getting the jet from the Gate to the runway to airborne, approach procedures, etc.

BUT..... in the sim, you're essentially the only aircraft in the world that's airborne and you have unlimited gas (since the sim is usually on Fuel Freeze so your gross weight doesn't change).

In the Sim, you can teach: "Ok-- on Downwind, slow to 210, F1. On Base, go to 190, F5. When turning towards Final, go to 170, F10. Four miles from the Marker, go Gear Down, F15. Two miles from the Marker, go to F30 and slow to Final Approach Speed."

Try that in the Real World, and you're Dead Man Flying.

If you pulled that stunt in Chicago or Newark, you'd get your arse handed to you and be both publicly chastised and humiliated. The real world answer is do NOT slow down until either Approach says you can or you're issued Approach Clearance. Most of the time, you'll go bombing around at 250 knots, 210-220 on Final, slow to 180 a couple miles from the Marker, then drop everything (Gear and full flaps) just prior to the Marker in order to be Stabilized by 1000'.

As you can see, Sim vs. Real World is a tiny little bit different.

R.

[Dang3r]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

The sim is a great tool for teaching switchology, flows, standard operating procedures (SOP), checklist discipline, the mechanics of getting the jet from the Gate to the runway to airborne, approach procedures, etc.

BUT..... in the sim, you're essentially the only aircraft in the world that's airborne and you have unlimited gas (since the sim is usually on Fuel Freeze so your gross weight doesn't change).

In the Sim, you can teach: "Ok-- on Downwind, slow to 210, F1. On Base, go to 190, F5. When turning towards Final, go to 170, F10. Four miles from the Marker, go Gear Down, F15. Two miles from the Marker, go to F30 and slow to Final Approach Speed."

Try that in the Real World, and you're Dead Man Flying.

If you pulled that stunt in Chicago or Newark, you'd get your arse handed to you and be both publicly chastised and humiliated. The real world answer is do NOT slow down until either Approach says you can or you're issued Approach Clearance. Most of the time, you'll go bombing around at 250 knots, 210-220 on Final, slow to 180 a couple miles from the Marker, then drop everything (Gear and full flaps) just prior to the Marker in order to be Stabilized by 1000'.

As you can see, Sim vs. Real World is a tiny little bit different.

R.

/signed

The more heavy scheduled traffic is around your final destination, the higher is the possibility of ATC to let all aircrafts do a high speed decent, approaching and keep a proper line up for landing. Theres no time to fool around and try own sim skills, thats for sure.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

KYUSHU J7W SHINDEN


https://tvd.im/aviation/1217-kyushu-...lightning.html

Attachment 3082419

You're on a roll with the odd configurations, Lady Jane; how about the Curtiss XP-55? At least it flew.

I never heard of that Miles M.39; I sincerely doubt it would have proved carrier-suitable: One engine out = auger in to the water!

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

Yikes. Three times is a little excessive. Three times being ignored (as both the PIC *and* the LCA) is pushing towards unsafe.

You're at the point of intervention after this happens-- there would be a lot going through my head; is it a communications issue between pilots? Is there a medical issue (micro-stroke for example)? Loss of cognitive function for whatever reason? Or is the FO simply overwhelmed with all that's going on at the moment? (Sim environment vs. actual aircraft environment is a VERY different thing from a dynamic operational standpoint).

Whatever the reason, I'd still expect the LCA to be either a) VERY directive ("Add thrust NOW") or to take the aircraft ("I have the aircraft, landing") and correct the UAS (Undesirable Aircraft State). You can deal with the situation with an extensive debrief/documentation after getting to the gate.

That being said, I've been there-- and things can go from "We're five by five" to "WTF is happening" in the space of a few heartbeats-- I've seen it go from a low workload to being absolutely overwhelming in literally a few seconds (regardless of pilot background)-- which is why flying high-performance jets takes so much training, and why LCA's are usually the most screened, experienced, trained, etc.

Not a fun situation to be in, no matter how you look at it.

R.

... like the time my son had dual anti-ice failures within 2 minutes of each other on his ERJ-145, at night, IMC, just after takeoff. It was his leg. While the captain was running the checklist, he declared an emergency. Ice started accumulating, landed overweight.