The great big "ask an airline pilot" thread!

harr

Hi
I am very nervous flying and I also suffer from a fear of small spaces,I have never let it stop me traveling but try and void smaller air craft if I can .
I have been on short trips to Europe where the flight is no more than 3 hours and this is ok and also to the US with virgin Atlantic which I found just about ok.
I have a group trip next week to Canada and we are going with air Canada rouge and the reviews of this operator is bad and it's all about cramped conditions and no in flight entertainment system to keep my mind busy.
The taught of being crammed in to a small plane for 7 hours plus is making me think twice about going.
Any body any tips or where I should sit ,I don't even know if I will be able at this stage to pick my own seats . HELP....:(

owenc

I recommend that you go up in a 2 seater aircraft.

I love flying but used to be crapping myself in small planes but then went up a few times and was fine after. I find that the smaller planes have less turbulence..

If you understand what turbulence is it does help.

I've flown with Continential airlines to PBI and there was just an overhead tv the whole way which was just a total disaster. For that you can't really do anything.. You are on a widebody so should have plenty of room... You are lucky as on my last flight to America they had the seatbelt sign on alot and we had only one isle. Its not really that bad as the pacific is worse, set you're watch for 4 hours and you will reach the continent.

To NYC it is only 6 hours so if you just grin and bear it you will be fine.

owenc

You can use this.

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air_Canada/Air_Canada_Rouge_Boeing_767-300ER_V1.php

I must admit that does look dire, I thought there would be overhead tvs but it actually says none. On our 757 we had a choice of 60 movies which made the flight fly by. I think you are gonna have to download movies before.

billie1b

harr wrote: »

Hi
I am very nervous flying and I also suffer from a fear of small spaces,I have never let it stop me traveling but try and void smaller air craft if I can .
I have been on short trips to Europe where the flight is no more than 3 hours and this is ok and also to the US with virgin Atlantic which I found just about ok.
I have a group trip next week to Canada and we are going with air Canada rouge and the reviews of this operator is bad and it's all about cramped conditions and no in flight entertainment system to keep my mind busy.
The taught of being crammed in to a small plane for 7 hours plus is making me think twice about going.
Any body any tips or where I should sit ,I don't even know if I will be able at this stage to pick my own seats . HELP....:(

The AirCanada Rouge is a 767-300, its a widebody aircraft with two aisles, most likely bigger than any aircraft you've travelled around Europe on, when people talk cramped they are usually talking about the seating, the actual aircraft itself is big and you'll notice a big difference when you walk on compared to the single aisle birds you get around Europe, I wouldn't worry too much, bring a tablet with your own selection of stuff on it, will be much better than IFE as you know yourself what you like. Also books, music, crosswords and little snacks will help pass the time. Enjoy your flight, id love a flight on a classic like that

IRLConor

harr wrote: »

no in flight entertainment system to keep my mind busy.

According to a friend of mine who flew with them recently the in-flight entertainment isn't bad. You either use your own laptop or iPad or you can rent an iPad from them for $10.

Here are the details: http://www.aircanada.com/rouge/en/entertainment.html

lemansky

Yea the Rouge IFE isn't too bad at all. If you are bringing your own iPad make sure to download the app BEFORE the flight though.

I went over with them at the start of the summer and the IFE connection went down for an hour or so, possibly even less. They refunded everyone who rented an iPad the ten dollars but let them hang onto the devices in case it started working again...and it did! Profit :cool:

harr

Thanks for the replies , it somewhat put my mind at ease .... It also the take off and landing that puts into a cold sweat ,takeoff more so

Tenger

harr wrote: »

Thanks for the replies , it somewhat put my mind at ease .... It also the take off and landing that puts into a cold sweat ,takeoff more so

For you the flight is a unnerving experience, for the flight crew it is routine. I can guarantee that the pilots have 1000's of flights between them. To them it is like driving a car. Always let the cabin crew know of your fear as you board. Try to use the flight as witch off time, watch movies, listen to music, sleep?

owenc

Are there air marshals on all flights to America?

smurfjed

Are there air marshals on all flights to America?

Do you really think that anyone is going to answer that? Surely it defeats the whole concept of security if people start telling the secrets !

owenc

Yawn

Growler!!!

owenc wrote: »

Are there air marshals on all flights to America?

Type " us air marshal" into google, scroll down to a USA Today article.

Should answer your question.

fr336

Tenger wrote: »

For you the flight is a unnerving experience, for the flight crew it is routine. I can guarantee that the pilots have 1000's of flights between them. To them it is like driving a car. Always let the cabin crew know of your fear as you board. Try to use the flight as witch off time, watch movies, listen to music, sleep?

Well that would be something else to be worried about I suppose...:pac:

Tenger

owenc wrote: »

Yawn

Owenc, you got an honest answer. No need to respond so negatively. This is exactly the attitude I pointed out to you before.

Im with smurfjed.... if anyone here did know they are not going to disclose that info on a public forum.

amen

smurfjed wrote: »

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2010_q3/2/img/A2_fig5-large.gif

Basically the cut the aircraft and add some more to the front and more to the back, they are called plugs.

Correct me if I am wrong but this is basically done at design stage i.e. take an existing design say 747-400 and extend its length/cargo capacity by adding an extra section thus increasing the overall length of the plane.

You can't take an existing flying 747 and just add a plug section to make it longer.

Tenger

amen wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong but this is basically done at design stage i.e. take an existing design say 747-400 and extend its length/cargo capacity by adding an extra section thus increasing the overall length of the plane.

You can't take an existing flying 747 and just add a plug section to make it longer.

Yup. Its a design/construction step. EG the A340-600 was designed by 'inserting' extra sections into the existing design of the A340. Which gives us the long cigar shape of the -600. (There are other changes too btw)

Stealthirl

What about the B747-100 SUD conversion


photo credit to Peter Evers/airlinereporter.com

L1011

There's also the Basler DC3 conversions which involve lengthening an existing airframe; but its not something that's done often.

amen

What about the B747-100 SUD conversion

True but that was more a once off job not something you see a lot off.

DownBeaten

Before I ask my question, can I clarify that this is not an airline bashing question. There are enough of those already.

After years of avoiding a certain (nameless) airline, I've flown with them a good few times in recent months. In nearly all cases, the flight was extremely pleasant: reasonable fare, friendly cabin crew, no hassle, on or before schedule arrival.

But in every case the landing was (to say the least) firm. My piloting experience is limited to 2 & 4 seaters, and I know that if I were to perform such an arrival, my instructor would want to know why. It seems to be policy, as observing the windsocks, it doesn't seem to matter whether the wind is calm or if there is a stiff crosswind, the result is the same: thump.

So for my question to those of you lucky enough to get the comfy seats up at the pointy end is: What is the logical reason for this? Does it allow for more rapid braking to facilitate a quick turnaround?

smurfjed

Strange as it may sound, the landing performance is based upon a firm landing, a nice soft landing in either your Cessna or a 737 will eat the runway. I also "understand" from other forums ( I don't fly them) that they B737-800 requires a firm landing due to its handling characteristics. The A320 appears to be much more forgiving.
For the type that i do fly, we aim for soft landings and it amazing how much runway we rapidly eat up, combined with soft braking its common for us to use ALL of a 12000 runway

tricky D

DownBeaten wrote: »

Before I ask my question, can I clarify that this is not an airline bashing question. There are enough of those already.

After years of avoiding a certain (nameless) airline, I've flown with them a good few times in recent months. In nearly all cases, the flight was extremely pleasant: reasonable fare, friendly cabin crew, no hassle, on or before schedule arrival.

But in every case the landing was (to say the least) firm. My piloting experience is limited to 2 & 4 seaters, and I know that if I were to perform such an arrival, my instructor would want to know why. It seems to be policy, as observing the windsocks, it doesn't seem to matter whether the wind is calm or if there is a stiff crosswind, the result is the same: thump.

So for my question to those of you lucky enough to get the comfy seats up at the pointy end is: What is the logical reason for this? Does it allow for more rapid braking to facilitate a quick turnaround?

Positive landing has been previously mentioned in this thread:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80179811&postcount=683
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80184919&postcount=689

and maybe a few more before those posts.

DownBeaten

tricky D wrote: »

Positive landing has been previously mentioned in this thread.

Thanks Tricky, lots of interesting stuff back up this thread. You've ruined my chances of getting any work done today!

OzCam

My American (ex-military) friends tell me that you can judge where a US pilot was trained by the landing. Soft landing: Air Force. Firm landing: Navy. I guess the skills needed to land on a bucking, heaving slab of steel in the middle of a cold grey ocean in all weathers never leave you.

Also, there's a rumour that engineers prefer firmer landings. It gets the wheels up to rotation speed sooner, instead of dragging along the tarmac, which leads to less tyre wear. Allegedly

amen

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Jetairfly-(TUI-Airlines/Boeing-787-8-Dreamliner/2504522/M/

On the above picture on the left hud does anyone know if the numbers of .840 and .841 above the ias indicate Mach numbers and if so why is .84 above the .841 ?

ProfessorPlum

They are Mach numbers. The .84 at the top is the selected Mach (like the 37000 on the top right is the selected altitude), the .841 at the bottom is the Mach achieved at that moment.

amen

is that a strange way to show the selected vs actual mach numbers ?
Why is the selected on top and not the actual ?

ProfessorPlum

Nah it's pretty standard. Selected stuff along the top line. Although on Airbus the selected altitude is shown as a flight level on the top line when standard pressure is set.

smurfjed

They say that flying is hours and hours of pure boredom, interspersed with moments of sheer terror....... guess what... they were right

Growler!!!

smurfjed wrote: »

They say that flying is hours and hours of pure boredom, interspersed with moments of sheer terror....... guess what... they were right

Welcome to the left seat club. Everybody is looking at you for answers.

Chose wisely as the armchair flyers will pick over your decisions afterwards.

Learn from it and move on. It builds character and gives you great examples to use in interviews:)