Tartan Monkey

Very true as I like the Flintstones. ?

Moved to Qatar 5 1/2 years ago, hated it. Left after 2 years. Now very happy in Abu Dhabi in the UAE, been here 3 1/2 years. Very settled and don't see us moving, wife happy, wee one at school. Lots of friends here, most friends from home have moved overseas. Hardly any friends left in Scotland now.

Safety is not a limiting factor in this argument. Perhaps that is your biggest problem. For us safety is everything. It's an old cliche but it is certainly true that if the pilot goes home at the end of the flight then so do the passengers. Despite this incident in the Alps that still hold up. We don't take risks, we accept that there is risk in our job, but we don't go looking for it. Computers don't have the ability to decide what is too risky and when a situation is going to deteriorate into something more serious. You simply will not see pilotless commercial aircraft in 10 years.

You can certainly fly an aeroplane remotely. However operating a successful commercial flight from A-B dealing with weather, air traffic control restrictions, emergencies and technical issues that are not in "the code" is another matter. Then you have to multiply that by every commercial flight there is around the world. There are currently around 100,000 passenger flights every day around the world. That's 36,500,000 a year (roughly). So since the Silkair (alleged) pilot suicide in 1997, we have had (very roughly) 657,000,000 passenger flights worldwide, and 3 or 4 supposed pilot suicides. 3 or 4 too many I admit but it's hardly a common problem.

For someone with such a strong view on the subject, your lack of knowledge into the job of an airline pilot is staggering. So 3 pilots commit suicide in the past 18 years, (allegedly, as I believe only one has been proven beyond all doubt) and you want to replace all pilots with a computer? As I have said before, there are many cases where the computers would not have saved the aeroplane and many cases where the computer has caused the accident. A computer would not have landed in the Hudson following a double engine failure, a computer would not have safely landed the Qantas A380 in Singapore. Indeed in the Qantas incident the computers were making the situation worse. To say we are redundant and only look out of the window while the computer does everything is both insulting to our profession and factually incorrect. If and when the sky is full of pilotless aircraft (which incidentally Boeing and Airbus have no intention of designing in the near future) I for one will be happy to travel by whichever mode of transport is commanded by a human. It won't be in my lifetime though. I welcome your view, and it is an interesting debate, but your comments on pilots are far from true.

All Middle Eastern airlines, and several worldwide airports and airlines employ random breath and drug testing.

Eye tests every year under 60 during medical. Over 60 the eye tests and medical are every 6 months.

?

We tend to avoid anything predicting severe turbulence. It's difficult to define a threshold as such, partly in that some forms of turbulence are difficult to forecast. Some is associated with strong winds such as a jet stream over high terrain, as in the Pyrenees or the Alps. As its "clear air" turbulence we can't see it either on our weather radar or out the window. This obviously makes it much more tricky to avoid. In this case we rely on the weather forecasts en route, experience and our knowledge of met phenomena and on a measure on our flight plan called the shear rate. This is a ratio of changing temperature over a given altitude. So a 2 on the flight plan is faily benign, a 10 is probably moderate to severe turbulence. Sometimes we have a 3 predicted and encounter moderate turbulence, sometimes with a 10 we get nothing. Weather is hard to predict and is a dynamic thing, so really it's a best guess. As for what we do about it. Well if it's associated with precipitation such as a thunderstorm we will fly around it and avoid. Sometimes that means being 100 miles off track (as was the case last night) to avoid the storm. As you suggest we can change level by climbing or descending. Climbing can send us into clear air above any clouds, however it also reduces our aerodynamic margin. At high levels and high weights there is very little margin between stall speed and overspeed. This margin narrows as we climb and is, rather ominously known in aerodynamic terms as "coffin corner". So in unstable, turbulent air, climbing isn't always the best option. Sometimes we have to just sit with the turbulence and plough on through, but we certainly do all we can to avoid it. It's no fun for us either I can assure you. So on the whole we will avoid turbulence if we can, however it may not always be possible. We will always avoid thunder storms as they can seriously impact the performance of the aeroplane, and can in fact cause structural damage and even break up of the aeroplane. So when we make that PA welcoming you all on board and suggest you keep your seatbelt fastened even when the sign is off........ We really do mean it! As for the PA volume, it really depends on who is speaking on it. Sometimes the pilots are using their headset and the mic might not be picking everything up. A hand mic tends to work better and that's what the cabin crew use which is why you always hear the duty free goodies. TM.

I think psycometric tests will become mandatory. I've done several over the years, indeed I've done 3 at my current airline. Other companies I've worked for I didn't do any. I don't think you can just do them once, obviously life events come along and someone may not have the same mental state now as they had 10 years ago. I don't mind doing it, if it reduces the chances of this kind of thing happening then it's worth it.

There are no air capsules on an aeroplane. Air conditioning an pressurisation is actives by cold air entering the engine. It's then compressed and heated (known as bleed air) and is taken to the air conditioning packs. Inside the pack a heat exchanger cools the air back down. Finally it is gently heated to achieve the desired temperature on the cabin. Most large passenger aeroplanes have 2 or more a/c packs. Its true that filters are not as badly damaged as they were during the smoking days, but smoking on board was stopped for safety, not economic reasons.

Hypoxia would only have played a part if the cabin had depressurised. Although the aeroplane is flying at 38000ft, the cabin altitude is around 6000-8000ft. So assuming normal pressurisation, hypoxia isn't an issue. If it depressurised you would have heard the alarms on the CVR.

Yes. I agree. I had thought the same thing.

I'm curious about that too, I guess he took the answer to that with him.

Favourites for different reasons. For work - B777 and B757. For pleasure - FFA Bravo (Aerobatic trainer), Kitfox. Wish list. F16, F86 Sabre, Spitfire, P51 Mustang, B727, Concorde, B707, Extra 300.

It's about twice the normal descent rate, so it was descending at 3000-4000 ft/min. An A320 in a vertical dive would be in the 20,000-30,000 ft/min range very roughly. So steeper than normal yes, but wouldn't have felt terribly odd in the cabin.

"I do apologise if I'm repeating myself, jetlag do funny things to you. However if it makes you feel better I shall agree to disagree with you too." - that's form my post #207 on page 14. You either chose to ignore it or you didn't read it.So you don't have any problem with me? You are like this all the time then? Well I tell you what, I'm getting bored of your tone of conversation. The conversation is going nowhere, so it's over as far as I'm concerned. You accused me of taking 9 exams rather than the 15 that I told you I did. It was an attempt to belittle me and my opinion, and to make your own argument look more valid. I said we will agree to disagree but again you ignored that. By the way I told you twice in two separate posts that you were refering to a different course from me. As a final point the 777 that you talk about was designed by a team of over 5000 engineers. There were about 500 companies involved (that's in addition to the 5000 that worked on the boeing team). Boeing employ about 18000 engineers. There are around 100,000 people employed by boeing to design and build there commercial aircraft. So the concept of a single or small team of engineers building commercial aircraft is preposterous. Also none of those engineers work on unmanned aircraft. It's not the same company. Engineers of all types do a fantastic and difficult job. Engineering is a highly respected profession and rightly so. However it does not mean that your profession is any more valuable or difficult than my own. You still haven't said what it is specifically that you do.

When did you go solo then?

In all seriousness, what is it I've done to offend you? Is it me personally that you don't like or is it pilots in general? You are spouting your opinion as fact and shouting down everyone who disagrees. That's a very arrogant position to take. You have also accused me of either lying about my training or not remembering what I had to do to gain my qualifications. You tried to contradict me with information that was incorrect and you are trying to make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about. Exactly what field of engineering do you specialise in?

Thanks.

Thanks. Just trying to give some insight into an industry that lots of people don't know about, but use every day. Not trying to pick fights, be a knob or fall out with anyone. Oh and by the way, several of my friends are engineers. Civil engineers, one is a PhD, aeronautical engineers, aircraft engineers and building engineers.

Aye getting a bit boring now. Sorry, wasn't meant to be pages of batting back and forth. Think it's beer time.

Passive agressive? Interesting take on it considering you were the one telling me that I couldn't rememebr my own training! I've just noticed your original post to me. Clearly you have some sort of issue with me. I don't remember interacting with you in the past, but your original post suggests something. And yes, I was asked for my opinion before I gave it. By the way I didn't attempt to answer your question on unmanned flight. I'm more of a manned flight kind of pilot. I do know that not only is the technology not availible to operate every current and future commercial flight remotely, there isn't a public will to get on them. I do apologise if I'm repeating myself, jetlag do funny things to you. However if it makes you feel better I shall agree to disagree with you too. There we are all friends now, so no passive agressive behaviour on my part, and I can assure you no damaged ego. So I'll answer the questions on commercial aviation and you and your mate in Texas can answer the questions on unmanned flight. By the way I wasn't sure what passive agressive meant, so I googled it. See I do embrace technology.

Thanks for your rather informative post. I shall clarify for you. There were 9 subjects for the JAA (European regulation) Private Pilot's Licence. JAA has been superseded by EASA. When I did my Airline Transport Pilot's Licence in 1997, neither JAA nor EASA existed. My course was a UK CAA course and there were 15 exams. I know because I was there and I studied my nuts off every day to pass them. So there was no human error on my part (this time), but thanks for attempting to correct me. I was never in the Air Cadets myself, but I'm sure it was fun. I was actually trying to encourage you to go for lessons as you seem to have an interest in aviation. Clearly you don't take kindly to my opinion and that's up to you. I really couldn't care less. So I think we are about done with this "discussion". I came on here to offer a professional option as I was asked to do. I shall of course answer any questions to the best of my ability (all 15 exams worth) if anyone has them. So as you say, I think that rather brings us full circle.

And with all due respect we shall agree to disagree.