JetBlue A320 dual hydraulic failure.

[sloinker]

I'm not a nervous flyer per se. Long ago I actually kind of liked it. The baggage surrounding the flying and the money making little things bother me along with the time investment is a downer. Although with safety concerns it isn't possible to turn back time, I remember showing up at the last second, buying a ticket and getting on a plane with no fuss and no muss. The prices during the regulated environment didn't have many surprises. You can't really do that today unless you are rolling in cash and have 90 minutes lead time at the airport. I am a huge fan of Boeing but I will call a spade a spade. I think that the latest iteration of planes favor's Airbus technically. The upgrading of existing airframes is OK but not as good as most clean sheet designs. On the narrow bodies I preferred the Airbus. On the wide bodies I preferred the DC-10's, dating myself I know. Hated the B757 the most. The DC9's were ok. 737's were anywhere from great to dismal dependent on configuration. One of my early childhood memories was on a 707 I believe. Got a coloring book and some other swag iirc. Never been on a 777 or a 380.
I do remember the DC -10's in level flying seemed to be nose up as the trek down the aisle towards the cockpit seemed a little uphill. Since I have no control when flying it was soothing to see a couple older folks that most likely came from the military flying the jet. I suppose nowadays with glass cockpits and video game interfaces I should feel more comfortable with some Mountain Dew guzzling, sleep deprived gamer in the cockpit, but I don't.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

I'm not a nervous flyer per se. Long ago I actually kind of liked it. The baggage surrounding the flying and the money making little things bother me along with the time investment is a downer. Although with safety concerns it isn't possible to turn back time, I remember showing up at the last second, buying a ticket and getting on a plane with no fuss and no muss. The prices during the regulated environment didn't have many surprises. You can't really do that today unless you are rolling in cash and have 90 minutes lead time at the airport. I am a huge fan of Boeing but I will call a spade a spade. I think that the latest iteration of planes favor's Airbus technically. The upgrading of existing airframes is OK but not as good as most clean sheet designs. On the narrow bodies I preferred the Airbus. On the wide bodies I preferred the DC-10's, dating myself I know. Hated the B757 the most. The DC9's were ok. 737's were anywhere from great to dismal dependent on configuration. One of my early childhood memories was on a 707 I believe. Got a coloring book and some other swag iirc. Never been on a 777 or a 380.
I do remember the DC -10's in level flying seemed to be nose up as the trek down the aisle towards the cockpit seemed a little uphill. Since I have no control when flying it was soothing to see a couple older folks that most likely came from the military flying the jet. I suppose nowadays with glass cockpits and video game interfaces I should feel more comfortable with some Mountain Dew guzzling, sleep deprived gamer in the cockpit, but I don't.

I find it odd that you prefer former carrier pilots flying ( or USAF, second ) but you enjoyed the DC10 given its bad reputation if you watch those TV shows on plane crashes?

With all due respect, I do find nervous flyers often have certain rigid beliefs in order to make them feel more comfortable about flying.

Airbus A321 is not a clean sheet design, it’s a stretched A320 basically ( same wing, that’s why it can’t go very high…..but has double slotted flaps , unlike the A320, for landing ).

No comparison between the B757 versus DC 9. DC 9 was extremely loud at the back, and underpowered.

 

[sloinker]

I find it odd that you prefer former carrier pilots flying ( or USAF, second ) but you enjoyed the DC10 given its bad reputation if you watch those TV shows on plane crashes?

With all due respect, I do find nervous flyers often have certain rigid beliefs in order to make them feel more comfortable about flying.

Airbus A321 is not a clean sheet design, it’s a stretched A320 basically ( same wing, that’s why it can’t go very high…..but has double slotted flaps , unlike the A320, for landing ).

No comparison between the B757 versus DC 9. DC 9 was extremely loud at the back, and underpowered.

I concur about the DC-10 crashes. I want that flight crew that crash landed that un-flyable plane without hydraulics, or that dude that landed on the river in NYC a few years back. I am comfortable with boomers in charge as I know my generations and the prior generations capabilities. Younger folks are suspect in my mind, it is a prejudice on my part I know. As far as airframe preference I was mostly talking about comfort. I am not nervous, I am reconciled and fully functional as a passenger. Just as I didn't like working with injured and the dead from back when in my service. I could perform the lifesaving/medical aid functions about as well as anyone. Did not enjoy it and it made me vow to try to avoid as much as possible blood, bones, guts and death moving forward.
The first time on an Airbus was back around 1990. Narrow aisle on a brand new plane according to the pilot on the P.A. I was amazed how quiet and roomy it was, being used to the cattle jamming procedures on the 737's and DC-9's etc. That is why I hate the 757's. Seems that the planes were always full, the passengers in coach were just jammed together side by side and front to back. Didn't matter the carrier, too many bodies in too small a fuselage, much worse than any other plane imo.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

I concur about the DC-10 crashes. I want that flight crew that crash landed that un-flyable plane without hydraulics, or that dude that landed on the river in NYC a few years back. I am comfortable with boomers in charge as I know my generations and the prior generations capabilities. Younger folks are suspect in my mind, it is a prejudice on my part I know. As far as airframe preference I was mostly talking about comfort. I am not nervous, I am reconciled and fully functional as a passenger. Just as I didn't like working with injured and the dead from back when in my service. I could perform the lifesaving/medical aid functions about as well as anyone. Did not enjoy it and it made me vow to try to avoid as much as possible blood, bones, guts and death moving forward.
The first time on an Airbus was back around 1990. Narrow aisle on a brand new plane according to the pilot on the P.A. I was amazed how quiet and roomy it was, being used to the cattle jamming procedures on the 737's and DC-9's etc. That is why I hate the 757's. Seems that the planes were always full, the passengers in coach were just jammed together side by side and front to back. Didn't matter the carrier, too many bodies in too small a fuselage, much worse than any other plane imo.

 

[edyvw]

I concur about the DC-10 crashes. I want that flight crew that crash landed that un-flyable plane without hydraulics, or that dude that landed on the river in NYC a few years back. I am comfortable with boomers in charge as I know my generations and the prior generations capabilities. Younger folks are suspect in my mind, it is a prejudice on my part I know. As far as airframe preference I was mostly talking about comfort. I am not nervous, I am reconciled and fully functional as a passenger. Just as I didn't like working with injured and the dead from back when in my service. I could perform the lifesaving/medical aid functions about as well as anyone. Did not enjoy it and it made me vow to try to avoid as much as possible blood, bones, guts and death moving forward.
The first time on an Airbus was back around 1990. Narrow aisle on a brand new plane according to the pilot on the P.A. I was amazed how quiet and roomy it was, being used to the cattle jamming procedures on the 737's and DC-9's etc. That is why I hate the 757's. Seems that the planes were always full, the passengers in coach were just jammed together side by side and front to back. Didn't matter the carrier, too many bodies in too small a fuselage, much worse than any other plane imo.

I find that conflicting. 757 is smaller brother of 767. Inside, it always felt to me more spacious and "airy" than a 737 or 319/320/321. Of single-isle airplanes, I prefer 757 the most. Would I be thrilled to fly to UK or Portugal on 757? No. But I would choose it anytime over 737 or 320 families.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

I find that conflicting. 757 is smaller brother of 767. Inside, it always felt to me more spacious and "airy" than a 737 or 319/320/321. Of single-isle airplanes, I prefer 757 the most. Would I be thrilled to fly to UK or Portugal on 757? No. But I would choose it anytime over 737 or 320 families.

Just make sure "boomers" are flying it.

The last time I heard "boomers" was in The Hunt for Red October

 

[sloinker]

Just make sure "boomers" are flying it.

The last time I heard "boomers" was in The Hunt for Red October

It is actually a derogatory term used by the younger generations. I wear it with pride.
My flying experiences are just that, mine. I can't and won't try to quantify someone elses opinion of specific flights as they relate to comfort. Been on a couple different helicipters and small planes too. Not a big fan of the copters but the small planes were ok.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

It is actually a derogatory term used by the younger generations. I wear it with pride.
My flying experiences are just that, mine. I can't and won't try to quantify someone elses opinion of specific flights as they relate to comfort. Been on a couple different helicipters and small planes too. Not a big fan of the copters but the small planes were ok.

Missed being a boomer by 1 year.
If I was born 1 year earlier, in 1964, I would have been a better pilot

 

[edyvw]

Just make sure "boomers" are flying it.

The last time I heard "boomers" was in The Hunt for Red October

Arguing how one generation is better than another is utter nonsense.
Remember clipper captains? Same argument, until problems surfaced out.

 

[4WD]

It is actually a derogatory term used by the younger generations. I wear it with pride.

Beware of Pablo if he’s slip-in’ on his butt kickin’ shoes

 

[loneryder]

I don't enjoy watching aircraft take off and land as much as before, they are too quiet.

Visit an AF base to hear the noise of power.

 

[AZjeff]

Visit an AF base to hear the noise of power.

We were under the Luke AFB flight pattern today. F-16s and F-35s turning JP-8 into noise! Sound of freedom.

 

[sloinker]

Beware of Pablo if he’s slip-in’ on his butt kickin’ shoes View attachment 222477

I am going to be in Washington in June. Are you suggesting that I seek out Pablo and check out his butt kickin' shoes in person? I am just like Gandhi so he should have no issue enforcing his will.

 

[FowVay]

You guys probably know this about the CFM LEAP engines but the 737 Max series (4th gen) LEAP 1B and the A320NEO (new engine option) that is fitted with LEAP 1A engine all have the long start syndrome. I have never rebuilt a LEAP engine since they came out after I left the industry but from reading the technical papers these engines suffer from what they call a "bowed rotor". Apparently the rotating sections of the engine will relax after a cool-down period and cause a bit of flexing between the low and high pressure sections (N1 and N2 rotors). The long motoring on initial daily start is a result of the EEC spooling the motor until it reaches a specific harmonics balance before igniting the burner.

I know, it sounds crazy. But this is 2024 and we boomers are buying more and more velcro strap shoes just so we can head to Chick-fil-a for our free coffee on Wednesday. A wobbly shaft jet engine isn't all that unusual I suppose. I'd still take a CFM LEAP motor over a Pratt GTF.

 

[loneryder]

You guys probably know this about the CFM LEAP engines but the 737 Max series (4th gen) LEAP 1B and the A320NEO (new engine option) that is fitted with LEAP 1A engine all have the long start syndrome. I have never rebuilt a LEAP engine since they came out after I left the industry but from reading the technical papers these engines suffer from what they call a "bowed rotor". Apparently the rotating sections of the engine will relax after a cool-down period and cause a bit of flexing between the low and high pressure sections (N1 and N2 rotors). The long motoring on initial daily start is a result of the EEC spooling the motor until it reaches a specific harmonics balance before igniting the burner.

I know, it sounds crazy. But this is 2024 and we boomers are buying more and more velcro strap shoes just so we can head to Chick-fil-a for our free coffee on Wednesday. A wobbly shaft jet engine isn't all that unusual I suppose. I'd still take a CFM LEAP motor over a Pratt GTF.

Sketchers slip ons!

 

[PWMDMD]

I imagine most pilots nowadays go to some type of flight school and progressively work their way up to the larger aircraft. There is nothing wrong with this approach but If I actually got to choose my pilots and FO's. Folks that landed on carriers get my vote. A close second would be USAF pilots. I've watched a number of the air crash documentaries and it seems that many pilots use almost pure automation while flying. This works well as long as the automation is functional. Cascading events leading to incidents is a common theme when stick and rudder flying is needed. I know sometimes the airplane itself and how it is designed along with software can be an issue. I am not a pilot, I have done my share as a passenger though. Sad to say I actually prefer the Airbus as a passenger. I haven't flown in almost a decade. If I never fly again it won't make me shed a tear.

Careful about over or under-estimating anyone based solely on their training pedigree. I've met more than my fair share of healthcare clinicians who trained in foreign countries or US schools that are considered below average as far as training, who run circles around Harvard/Mass General trained clinicians, some of whom end up with a great training pedigree but they are average at best. You will inevitably have fantastic pilots who did not train in the armed forces with the only difference having nothing to do with ability, just their path in life. I have found this to be true of most professions.

 

[edyvw]

We were under the Luke AFB flight pattern today. F-16s and F-35s turning JP-8 into noise! Sound of freedom.

We have on daily basis “air show” here, and graduation show every May. I pick up neighborhood kids, load them in car with mine and we watch it with ice cream. This was this Thursday:

 

[sloinker]

Careful about over or under-estimating anyone based solely on their training pedigree. I've met more than my fair share of healthcare clinicians who trained in foreign countries or US schools that are considered below average as far as training, who run circles around Harvard/Mass General trained clinicians, some of whom end up with a great training pedigree but they are average at best. You will inevitably have fantastic pilots who did not train in the armed forces with the only difference having nothing to do with ability, just their path in life. I have found this to be true of most professions.

I am sure you are correct. I have taken tests where they throw out the top score and bottom score and curve the average. I will stand by my assertion that generally the best pilots in the world land on carrier decks. This is widely regarded as fact by a very large contingent of folks that actually have experience in the field, not my personal observations. This isn't to say there aren't superior pilots that were never in the military. I am making an argument about generalities and not specific cases. Was Chuck Yeager an excellent pilot? Maybe not. He did manage to crash. Not many flight school pilots ever crash. That will be my new yardstick.

 

[Astro14]

I am sure you are correct. I have taken tests where they throw out the top score and bottom score and curve the average. I will stand by my assertion that generally the best pilots in the world land on carrier decks. This is widely regarded as fact by a very large contingent of folks that actually have experience in the field, not my personal observations. This isn't to say there aren't superior pilots that were never in the military. I am making an argument about generalities and not specific cases. Was Chuck Yeager an excellent pilot? Maybe not. He did manage to crash. Not many flight school pilots ever crash. That will be my new yardstick.

Landing on a carrier deck requires a certain level of skill. I’ve talked about that skill, and performance parameters, as they existed back in my day.

Simply, to put an airplane, moving at 140 knots, down on a moving runway, with windshear and turbulence on final, and be within 15 inches of glideslope (not feet, inches) consistently requires a certain amount of skill.

I’m certain that @Just a civilian pilot has that skill - he just never had to be tested in that environment.

Every single Navy pilot that flew off carriers had to demonstrate that skill. That is not true of pilots who flew in other environments.

They may be just as good, they may not, but they were never tested at that level. Naval aviators were, every single one of them.

Now, that said, the most important skill in airliner flying is CRM/TEM. Interpersonal/team effectiveness. Stick and rudder matters, but not nearly as much as the ability to work together as a team. Leadership, resource management, decision-making, situational awareness, are all factors in successful outcomes in challenging situations in the world of airline flying.

The best airlines focus on development of that skill set.

 

[sloinker]

Landing on a carrier deck requires a certain level of skill. I’ve talked about that skill, and performance parameters, as they existed back in my day.

Simply, to put an airplane, moving at 140 knots, down on a moving runway, with windshear and turbulence on final, and be within 15 inches of glideslope (not feet, inches) consistently requires a certain amount of skill.

I’m certain that @Just a civilian pilot has that skill - he just never had to be tested in that environment.

Every single Navy pilot that flew off carriers had to demonstrate that skill. That is not true of pilots who flew in other environments.

They may be just as good, they may not, but they were never tested at that level. Naval aviators were, every single one of them.

Now, that said, the most important skill in airliner flying is CRM/TEM. Interpersonal/team effectiveness. Stick and rudder matters, but not nearly as much as the ability to work together as a team. Leadership, resource management, decision-making, situational awareness, are all factors in successful outcomes in challenging situations in the world of airline flying.

The best airlines focus on development of that skill set.

I agree with this statement. In modern flight and the further automation of these vehicles, pilots have become more flight managers and less stick and rudder operators. When there is no longer a physical attachment between the flight surfaces/engines and these operations are manipulated over a data bus, it stands to reason that these systems will be faster, more accurate and ultimately safer if the data is applied correctly for a given scenario. The software algorithms and ultimately the safe flight envelope of a modern aircraft are at the mercy of programming. Redundant systems are paramount due to the actual physical disconnect between flight crew and plane. The latest problems with the 737 max becoming un-flyable because of the TCAS programming and cost cutting as it pertained to the hardware utilized for it are a perfect example. I am not advocating a return to 1970 as I feel that modern aircraft designed/programmed correctly are safer. The technology exists now to have no flight crews at all. Maybe a trailer house in the Nevada desert with a manager to deal with inflight issues of a fleet of planes remotely?