Well, as long as AIA doesn't use the seatbelts to strap down fanblades..... (JK) ;}

(Written on 08/11/2017)(Permalink)

One look at the A380 gives me the 'gag' reflex. One look at the 74 always brings a little tear to my eyes. I remember flying on the rope-start 747 going into ORD at Mach-snot. It was so loud in the cockpit you needed earplugs. But, it was exhilarating. Someday, when we're flying the trans-Pacific routes in mega-stretched 737 'ultra Maxx' jets, we'll still look back and remember this grand old lady. sigh.

(Written on 08/09/2017)(Permalink)

On second thought....seems like they had both WOW and probably deployed speedbrakes ? I guess if they were 'on the ground' auto go-around isn't possible. The article cited is pretty specific. sigh....

(Written on 09/09/2016)(Permalink)

Different planes may have different specifics, but a single TOGA would probably have not initiated go-around thrust in this case. A 'double-click' TOGA might have advanced the throttles.... (from a friend who's current 777). The best procedures/sim instructors always teach these golden rules of fully automated aircraft (starting with Airbus at the top of the list): 1)identify the switch 2)confirm the switch (time permitting) 3)Watch for the desired reaction 4)adjust as necessary and FLY THE AIRPLANE (all of this IMHO of course) For those that haven't flown highly automated jets: Manually 'firewalling' the throttles is a relatively uncommon procedure--except for wind shear recovery or terrain avoidance (ironically). Sadly, fly the airplane THEN run the automation doesn't seem to be the common procedure for many. I blame the trainers and management. Sadly, deference to 'nationality' 'position' or 'culture' seems to be confused with 'Capt's authority' more and more.....

(Written on 09/09/2016)(Permalink)

Actually, they had a positive rate for a few seconds. They simply got in a hurry. pitch, power, performance.... AND continued flight assured (aircraft will not touchdown). Aircraft touchdown during CAT2/3 (or other emergency)approaches is a very real possibility and the possibility of inadvertent touchdown (or secondary bounce etc...) is a very real factor--even in large jets like the 777. Gear retraction is even more critical in max-performance V1 cuts, but you won't see well-trained pilots snapping the gear up 50 feet off the ground without adequate performance indications. There is a difference in training....

(Written on 09/09/2016)(Permalink)

With all due respect to the families and loved ones lost.... One word: Somatogravic

(Written on 04/15/2016)(Permalink)

Your knowledge as a meteorologist may be top notch. Your knowledge of ETOPS flight planning and aircraft performance (not to mention the flight plan optimization programs) is probably not that of a professional dispatcher or pilot (guess). The ETOPS/route planning requires very little deviation to begin eating into fuel reserves--which can be quite critical on longer ETOPS flights. BTW, most flight plans are now optimized with (historical/current) aircraft telemetry data. So, the forecasts are not the only source for data. Sadly, I think some of this data may further complicate the planning process; especially if it paints an 'overly rosy' picture. I wouldn't blame the weather forecasts either. We're lucky to have the excellent data we have in modern times. cheers.

(Written on 04/09/2016)(Permalink)

The answer is more complicated than you know. This flight is ETOPS planed. Wiki the term 'ETOPS' and you'll get some basics. The requirement for ETOPS requires that you can continue the flight safely--without permanently incapacitating the passengers--in case of engine loss or pressurization loss. What you may not understand is that flight routing/procedures are based on hitting the worst possible point--all the way along the flight path--and then descending to a safe altitude (for passengers to breath) and then flying in the shortest direction to a safe landing. Beginning to see the point? Between HNL and SFO, that means turning around and flying BACK to HNL for a good portion of the flight--at very low altitude and very high fuel burn. This is the fuel required to safely continue. It is constantly updated. If you get strong tail winds--great. But, at certain points along the route, those very strong tail winds may make it impossible to return to a safe landing at low alt

(Written on 04/09/2016)(Permalink)

The same reason that there are no 'old bold pilots.' Some pilots make more conservative decisions. Some Aircraft burn more fuel (individual aircraft). Routings change--not every HNL-SFO flight travels on the same track, altitude etc... Weight at t/o l/o determine cruise altitude (stepped). Heavier aircraft can't climb as high/fast. Even small changes make big differences. Every flight is unique in that sense.

(Written on 04/09/2016)(Permalink)

NOBODY 'fills the tanks' Filling the tanks is what you do with cars and boats. Aircraft fuel load is based on weight, capacity, fuel required, ferry fuel etc.. etc... Even if the particular flight requires MAXIMUM available fuel--the fuel loaded must be within maximum capacity (gals) maximum weight (fuel and aircraft) and adjusted for density etc... So, there is no such thing as 'filling the tanks' on a very large aircraft. No offense, but to simplify it, you give people the wrong impressions.

(Written on 04/09/2016)(Permalink)