What it's like to fly an airliner.
- Thread starter Astro14
- Start date
MolaKule
Staff member
Here's my collection of Slide Rules from my Uni days. I kept using some of them even after I got my TI-81 scientific calculator.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Same - Currently booked:
A321NEO,
A380-800
B737Max,
B748i, (replaced B744)
A321NEO,
A320
B787-10
Shhh… nobody is supposed to know about that switch!
I finally got caught up on this thread, awesomeness from Astro14 and a bunch of cool questions. Obligatory thanks to Astro!
My question: for pilots like you who will be retiring, is there a secondary market for your skills like private pilot for someone owning their own 757/767? I would think your skills would be in high demand in that niche market. Other than that, what are the usual next steps for pilots after stepping down from revenue flights? Fascinated by your career and wish I would have paid better attention in school. But I think I was born for a big radial engine instead of jets so I was born too late.
My question: for pilots like you who will be retiring, is there a secondary market for your skills like private pilot for someone owning their own 757/767? I would think your skills would be in high demand in that niche market. Other than that, what are the usual next steps for pilots after stepping down from revenue flights? Fascinated by your career and wish I would have paid better attention in school. But I think I was born for a big radial engine instead of jets so I was born too late.
I enjoy Astros plane /pilot posts. I love planes any type of plane, especially airliners.
Last edited by a moderator:
There is a secondary market for skills, but by the time we retire, there are medical classification limitations.
I might be able to fly under part 91, with only a second class medical, but I am not sure about that.
A lot of guys go on to fly corporate jets after retirement, or flight instruct, things which are more lax about medical certifications.
Personally, I have no desire to work any longer than 65. I had considered retiring at 60, but will likely work for a few years after that, perhaps all the way to 65. I love my job, but I like being with my lovely bride, and family, even more.
I actually don't have that much flight time. I spent several years recalled to active duty, during which I did desk work, and several years of being an instructor, all of which slowed my flight time accumulation. I've got about 8800 hours of total time. Virtually zero piston time.
The Navy started me in a T-34C, which had a PT-6A turboprop, so, everything I've flown at work was turbine. Some faster, some slower, some with lots of engines, some with only one, airplanes with swept wings, straight wings, delta wings, and variable wings, but all of them with turbines.
Let me add that I’ve seen this oligarch’s jet parked in EWR.
simpleflying.com
A jet that I, as a Captain, and Check Airman, on the 767, am very qualified to operate.
Pretty sure I wouldn’t want to work for him.
Pretty sure he’s not hiring right now.
Roman Abramovich's Private Jet: A Flying 767 Mansion
The Chelsea FC owner recently traded the aircraft in for a Boeing 787.
simpleflying.com
A jet that I, as a Captain, and Check Airman, on the 767, am very qualified to operate.
Pretty sure I wouldn’t want to work for him.
Pretty sure he’s not hiring right now.
A Russian "Oligarch", pretty much equals a Mafia Godfather in this country. Except for the fact they're in bed with the President, and can operate with impunity..... At least up until now.
@Astro14 and any other commercial pilots. On an average year, how many go arounds do you do? I've been a 100,000 mile/year flyer for 24 years now and always end up with at least once a year, but sometimes more. Last year I had 4. So just out of curiosity, how many do you do end up doing, I know the answer isn't black and white, but for what reasons? Thanks!
Most go arounds are for weather - can’t see to land, but many are for wind shear (+/- 15 knots or greater) or an unstable approach ( +15/-5 knots, not fully configured, one dot low or high on glide slope, at 500’).
Because I’m a Check Airman, I’m both more exposed to potential go around situations (new pilot training) and more likely to execute one in the event of an unstable approach (higher compliance rate).
In general, the go arounds I’ve done are the result of poor approach control - SFO and BOS come to mind - leaving you so high and fast that you simply can’t get stable.
Unstable approaches are the biggest cause of landing accidents.
The industry has a history of unstable approaches, e.g. SWA in Burbank, but big efforts are being made to actually go around if unstable.
The compliance rate of go arounds for unstable approach is low. For many reasons, pilots just don’t want to go around if the approach is unstable.
They feel pressure to land, pressure to be on time, pressure to complete the task they’ve started, reticence to admit fault or failure, concern of public perception.
But the point is: the compliance rate is very low and a big area for improvement.
My last go around was for a bounced landing in Lisbon last summer. Brand new hire pilot. Good approach, but the 767-400 is a demanding beast. Better to go around.
I probably average about two a year, but again, I’m higher risk because of the nature of my flying.
Wasn't Kai Tak the epicenter for that?
Stabilized approach is about energy management and having the airplane in the right configuration and energy state for landing. It's not about difficult or challenging airports. Burbank isn't difficult, for example, but an unstable approach led to disaster.
Southwest Airlines Flight 1455 - Wikipedia
A stabilized approach is when the airplane is configured for landing, engines spooled up, airspeed within +15/-5 of target, on vertical path, on lateral path, and staying there, not transiting through glideslope or course. The goal: be stable at 1,000 feet. If you're not stable at 500 feet, go around.
The approach to Kai Tak was easy if flown well. I've done it.
The MDA on the IGS was about 680 feet. So, by 500 feet, you were on profile - speed stable, configured, on the centerline of the lights, and on the vertical path to runway 13.
Being unstable happens often, both in the US and other countries - approach control keeps you at high speed to the marker (outer marker, final approach fix) and often, high. Combine high and fast, and you simply can't get to a stable approach from where they put you. The flight parameters exceed the criteria I listed above.
The infamous San Francisco "Slam Dunk", for example. London Heathrow CDA (Constant Descent Angle) requirements ensures that every 757 will be unstable at 1,000 feet ( our target for achieving stable approach parameters) but you will be stable by about 600' and just barely comply the 500 foot go-around window.
London Control, of course, will levy hefty fines and penalties for airlines that fail to comply with their rigid speed assignments, even if you're 5 knots off. Via ADS-B, they can see everything.
So, while the FAA pushes for pilots to fly a stabilized approach, approach control facilities at busy airports push pilots into unstable situations to maximize arrival capacity.
Here's more on the concept, as articulated by the FAA:
Not at all relevant to this thread, but a friend really wants me to go visit him and his partner in Philly this summer. I was debating making it a week, several days there, and a couple days in NYC. I never been on a 757, 777 or 787 which United flies from JFK/EWR to SFO. Now, the av nerd in me would be happy with either but I really want to fly the 757 before it goes to pasture. Sound like a swell choice?
I've heard great things about the 787 - most notably how they've managed to make it more comfortable for passengers. Been on a 777, and other than they were newer with newer amenities, it wasn't that great. I've been on a 757 a few times but I don't recall the plane being anything that stood out to the passenger, although they were all 90s vintage planes that I flew in the 90s or they hadn't been upgraded with any amenities.
