Ah, OK, I missed the intent. Sorry about that.Astro, I was completely joking, in jest at the whole AP poke. I’d trust two people at the controls more than the computer… the onboard pilots actually have incentive to execute a successful landing. And yes, even though I’ve got plenty of exposure to watching Navy jets fly and land, I’ve only ever flown a Piper Warrior II myself. Didn’t mean to imply I was ignoring commercial or military pilots’ skill.
Who programs the autopilot?
Who configures the airplane?
Who selects the runway, flap setting, approach speed, autobrakes?
How does the airplane taxi once landed?
All of those functions are currently done by a trained crew. Autopilots cannot do that. Remote pilots cannot do that.
You need to understand how an airplane actually operates before making suggestions on how they can be flown.
The only new replacement is a 787, which retails for about $250 million. Not an attractive option, but perhaps the only open option.
The used 767-300 market is tight, because Amazon wants them for freighters. We got three used airplanes from Hawaiian a few years ago, and then Amazon started outbidding us on every available airframe.
My understanding is that the KC-46 (a 767-300 airframe with 767-400 cockpit and systems before getting the USAF equipment) is taking up all of that production line. No new 767 are being offered for sale right now.Does KC-46 production feature into future 767 availability? Or is that completely separate?
If you’re going to buy a new airplane, then a 787 is a better choice.
My understanding is that the 787 is much easier to fly - particularly when de-rotating the nose.Carbon fiber isn't likely to buckle though, like aluminum alloys would. Any damage could be more dramatic.
Not sure I agree with that first sentence, it certainly gave me the courage to tell the wife I ran over a new chainsaw!EDITED TO ADD: Drinking won't help anything. If I were that pilot, I'd feel bad, but I'd be doing everything I possibly could to show how sorry I was that it happened, and that I was willing to do anything and everything possible to prevent anything of the sort from ever happening again. I would think the worst thing they could do would be to show any kind of arrogance. I'd want to show a willingness to take every training and sim class they wanted me to take. If you're him, you have to accept that it happened and move on with a resolve never to let it happen again (Indeed, if he was at fault. We don't know any of the details. There could be circumstances we don't know about, of course.)
What’s interesting about the judgment is this:Not sure I agree with that first sentence, it certainly gave me the courage to tell the wife I ran over a new chainsaw!I agree with the rest though.
I cant imagine the stress this pilot is under right now, but it has to be intense. This story is all over the news feeds and the keyboard mobs are really hammering him, with almost no details or facts available to any of us. I dont have the credentials to pass judgement on whatever happened during this landing, so all I can say is hopefully his career isnt over and whatever wrongs get righted. I really feel bad for the guy, whoever he is.
This isnt the first 767 to get this type of damage from a hard landing but due to its age I dont see it flying again, I could be wrong.... I've been involved first hand in these types of repairs and the amount of time, inspections, labor, and money involved is absolutely astronomical. What a mess.
I dont know if I want to be a pilot anymore.....
Ah, OK, I missed the intent. Sorry about that.
Lots of folks who don’t understand how airplanes work think that an autopilot can do every thing a pilot can, and, of course, that they themselves can do everything a pilot can.
But it took me longer to become fully trained to be a pilot than it took my daughter to become a doctor.
Flight attendants see us when we’re not busy and think, “Oh, that job is so easy” but they fail to consider that they’re prohibited from talking with us except in an emergency when we’re below 10,000 feet. Because that’s when the workload is high.
There is a lot more to flying an airplane than driving a car. It’s hundreds of times more complex because it has to be operated in three dimensions, lift isn’t a simple thing like traction, lift alone requires management of several factors, engine thrust and response isn’t simple.
Navigation is complex and you often can’t see outside. Communication is complex. And you must comply with complex three dimensional procedures and clearances given by ATC.
And that’s when things are easy. Throw in weather, or an aircraft systems failure, or an engine failure, and it just got a lot harder.
Driving a car and flying are as far apart as being able to peel a potato and being a graduate of the Cordon Bleu.
I get frustrated with these discussions because so many think what I do is easy. It’s not.
Until you’ve actually flown an airliner, you simply have no idea. I’ve had a couple of guests in my simulator - they can tell you about how complex an airplane is both from a systems perspective and from an operational perspective.
Back on topic…
This airplane has structural damage. Sometimes that can be fixed. Sometimes not. This airplane had a new interior installed recently, for about $5 million. We need the lift, the seats, that this airplane added to the fleet. So, will it get fixed? Probably not, but that decision can’t be made until Boeing looks at it and gives us a cost estimate. We need the airplane to support our international routes.
The only new replacement is a 787, which retails for about $250 million. Not an attractive option, but perhaps the only open option.
The used 767-300 market is tight, because Amazon wants them for freighters. We got three used airplanes from Hawaiian a few years ago, and then Amazon started outbidding us on every available airframe.
As for the crew? This is why Check Pilots are so highly regarded, and why Check Pilot bonus pay quadrupled in ourcurrent negotiations. Teaching pilots who are new to the airplane always comes with elevated risk. We do it on revenue flights in the operation.
An accident investigation will take place. Data will be examined and analyzed. More crew training will take place. If this was during OE (a new pilot being trained by a check pilot) then there will be both pilot training and a review of the check pilot performance.
We don’t discipline or fire pilots for honest mistakes - but we do discipline and fire pilots who willfully violate rules. I don’t know what happened in this case, but we tend towards rehabilitation, not retribution, when crews make a mistake.
This looks a lot like a mistake.
I think landings in the rain are supposed to be extra hard to avoid hydroplaning.I’ve been on some sketchy landings, especially into Sea-Tac when it was a downpour at night and what felt like a pretty good side wind…. Puckered up for sure!!
Depends on runway length, approach speed, and a few other factors but a slippery runway is generally not the time to “grease” it on… as the reduced fraction makes it harder to stop.I think landings in the rain are supposed to be extra hard to avoid hydroplaning.
Which is the reason that I gave the pilots the benefit of the doubt in my post.What’s interesting about the judgment is this:
Those without the understanding to judge are the first to pass judgement without even knowing the facts.
Those with the understanding to judge are withholding judgement until the facts are known.