The new airline thread

[nunya]

 

31 minutes ago, JS said:

A friend keeps telling me how great Ukraine is and how much they love American's.  Great exchange rate too apparently. 

My Uncle Joe said they're great golfers, too.

[MooseAg03]

Any insights into jumpseating while on Mil leave? I’m at a regional and would like to take advantage of the ability to travel home while I’m TDY for several months. My company’s contract says my family and I can still use passes, but doesn’t address jumpseating. Do I still retain CASS access while on leave?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nunya]

Depends on the company and the length of your mil leave.  Talk to your jump seat committee.

[HossHarris]

You can travel almost anywhere, for business or pleasure, without any effect on your clearances ..., as long as you let the appropriate clearance folks know in advance. Sometimes WELL in advance. 

[brabus]

4 hours ago, JS said:

Along those lines, is there some kind of published list of do no go countries for U.S. military? A friend keeps telling me how great Ukraine is and how much they love American's.  Great exchange rate too apparently. 

Ask your security manager/GSSO. There are travel lists, but none are applicable to all personnel.  Just depends on what types of clearances you hold. Ukraine is probably good to go for you. 

[M2]

Talk to your security folks before you go and check out the Foreign Clearance Guide for the country/countries in question, as you may have to put in an APACS request for taking leave in some of them...

https://www.fcg.pentagon.mil/fcg.cfm

[Hacker]

On 9/27/2019 at 8:13 PM, nunya said:

FedEx gives some weight to past aircraft experience.  Dunno the details about how that plays out.

With the exception of the MD-11, all initial aircraft and domicile assignments for newhires are based on the last 4 of SSN (9999 highest, 0000 lowest).  Newhires put in a dream sheet before day one of indoc, and available assignments are handed out in seniority order.

MD-11 assignments are selected separately, before day one of indoc by the company, and this is where previous experience is involved.  Because of the finicky landing performance of the airplane, and the accident record at FedEx, they are looking for specific experience to send newhires to the airplane.  For some reason they like Navy carrier guys, C-17 guys, and of course KC-10 guys, but that's not all inclusive.

Edited October 5, 2019 by Hacker

[brabus]

6 hours ago, Hacker said:

For some reason they like Navy carrier guys, C-17 guys,

They like guys who don’t know how to flare or put the gear down? Bold safety strategy cotton, let’s see if it pays off...

[SurelySerious]

9 hours ago, Hacker said:

.  For some reason they like Navy carrier guys

There are several people that can vouch that I like to plant it on the runway like it’s a bo-at. Does that count?

[ImNotARobot]

14 hours ago, brabus said:

They like guys who don’t know how to flare or put the gear down? Bold safety strategy cotton, let’s see if it pays off...

Ironically, they figured that out the hard way. C-17? Add power to flare. F-18? Hit the 3-wire with AB ready. Neither habit pattern translates well to managing the tight constraints of landing the MD. I've been told that FedEx has since gone away from those two backgrounds for the MD. But yeah, they were recruiting those specifically for a period. The KC-10 bubbas are obviously the best background for it.

That's not a knock on 17/18 dudes either. As an IP in a couple different heavy military aircraft, I'm very familiar with negative transfer myself. I've murdered a lot of penguins trying to break habit patterns and just be normal in a new airplane. Takes me a few reps before I can get it down...I'm no Chuck Yeager.

[DirkDiggler]

10 minutes ago, ImNotARobot said:

Ironically, they figured that out the hard way. C-17? Add power to flare. F-18? Hit the 3-wire with AB ready. Neither habit pattern translates well to managing the tight constraints of landing the MD. I've been told that FedEx has since gone away from those two backgrounds for the MD. But yeah, they were recruiting those specifically for a period. The KC-10 bubbas are obviously the best background for it.

That's not a knock on 17/18 dudes either. As an IP in a couple different heavy military aircraft, I'm very familiar with negative transfer myself. I've murdered a lot of penguins trying to break habit patterns and just be normal in a new airplane. Takes me a few reps before I can get it down...I'm no Chuck Yeager.

Honestly curious, what makes the MD-11/KC-10 so finicky to land?

[Gazmo]

Honestly curious, what makes the MD-11/KC-10 so finicky to land?

Found this with Google:

"The major issue with the MD11, difficult pitch control caused by a downsized horizontal stabilizer for fuel saving, was only partly compensated by an electronic longitudinal stabilzation augmentation system (LSAS) during flight , however during the last part of the landing this system was (gradualy) switched off to allow sufficient pitch handling during landing.

Despite many software upgrades (issued by Boeing as the new OEM) of this LSA system the pitch control of the MD11 during landing remains "questionable" , especially in adverse weather conditions.

The MD11 landing issues aggrevated with the introduction and/or conversion of more freighters with increased MLW, further increasing the landing speed and decreasing the pilots reaction time."
----------------------------

Having flown the KC-135 for almost 2 decades now, I can attest to the fact high approach speeds in a large transport aircraft do make landings challenging. The -135 has some pretty high approach speeds also and heavy flight controls (cables/pulleys without hydro assist for ailerons and elevator).

[ImNotARobot]

The -135s PMCs also make the landing phase difficult. Each Power Mngment Control isn't fully active below 70% N1...also known as every approach ever flown. So each of the 4 throttles are commanding some goofy fuel flow/power setting. Tanker dudes get used to this abnormality by (usually) only adjusting two sym throttles at a time, allowing the resulting power change to take effect, and then fixing it again when it's all jacked up. Guys who try to keep the throttles aligned, or worse, keep adjusting all 4 throttles constantly, get unstable on final with PIO due to the the swept wing & underslung engines. The experienced tanker dude known the PMC hate him and hate each other below 70% N1...and waits to see what he gets. The known power setting is a place from which to deviate.

I agree with the above Google find on the MD. The MD-11's inception has some undertones of the 737 Max issues. The DC-10/MD-10 was the original design, so MD stretched the fuselage out 40', and then had to make the rudder smaller due to CG issues with the new longer moment arm. Then MD put more powerful engines on it. So the flying characteristics weren't the same as a -10, but wait, we'll just add some automation/bells/whistles (LSAS, parallelt rudder) to compensate for the pilots. The single MD-11 type rating allows pilots to fly the -11 and both flavors of MD-10 (MD-10-10, and MD-10-30, the -30 is the KC-10). Does this sound somewhat familiar?

MD-11 wing design is also an issue. I haven't flown the T-38, but I understand that short stubby wings like to go fast, don't like to go slow. MD-11 wings are similar in that respect. The Boeing wings are all kinda the same; big, fat cambered bars that can generate lift throughout a wide range of speeds (although this design does limit the top speed of the airplane). The MD's wings are closer in design to a fighter aircraft; thinner, swept back. This provides a higher top end speed, but also squirrelly characteristics down low on final...high deck angle, higher approach speeds than are normal to transport category aircraft. VVI=GS/2, so with approach speeds in the high 170s when heavy, the VVI is 800' down, vice 700' down. A comparatively small performance window.

Throw in some gusty winds, transitioning out of a low ceiling at max gross landing weight, and you get the picture. I'll say this...the MD has definitely earned its horrific accident history. It's not just 3rd world, barely trained pilots who have trouble processing the automation/landing characteristics on the MD either. Google FX80 @ Narita.

I speak only for myself...the MD is the most difficult plane I've learned to fly. It's overengineered, This airplane, as built, would not be certified by today's standards.

So FedEx trying to handpick guys to manage that monster right out of the gate doesn't seem crazy to me. But choosing C-17 background who fly on the backside of the power curve and add power to flare seems backward. And choosing USN 3-wire trap dudes seems equally incorrect. But they don't pay me to make those decisions.

[Bigred]

I have no idea about C-17s, but I wonder if the fact that Navy dudes flying an AOA approach vice just a specific airspeed have anything to do with it? That’s a random guess considering you said there’s such a pitch issue with the MD-11

[jazzdude]

Normal C-17 landings are AOA approaches/landings

[SocialD]

Don't most Air Force aircraft fly AOA? 

[nunya]

17 minutes ago, SocialD said:

Don't most Air Force aircraft fly AOA? 

Nope.  

[Muscle2002]

1 hour ago, SocialD said:

Don't most Air Force aircraft fly AOA? 

Every fighter I have flown or evaluated used AOA, but all, with the exception of the Super Hornet and Hornet, were flown in the region of "normal command" (front side) which is more intuitive to fly, IMO.

[HuggyU2]

2 hours ago, Muscle2002 said:

Every fighter I have flown or evaluated used AOA, but all, with the exception of the Super Hornet and Hornet, were flown in the region of "normal command" (front side) which is more intuitive to fly, IMO.

I'm very surprised by this statement.  Notwithstanding those two jets, the others all flew approaches faster than L/Dmax?  

I think there is something I'm missing.  

[Muscle2002]

3 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

I'm very surprised by this statement.  Notwithstanding those two jets, the others all flew approaches faster than L/Dmax?  

I think there is something I'm missing.  

These AoA are likely very close to L/Dmax, but I imagine that in each aircraft, test teams built in a pad to ensure acceptable handling qualities were maintained. This would be to protect against moving in-and-out of backside and frontside regimes. That said, none of the flight manuals I have read corroborate such a hunch, but I know that in evaluating "Steady-state flight-path response to pitch controller," the MIL-STD evaluation criteria requires that an "aircraft remains tractable at commonly encountered off-nominal speeds." In this case, off-nominal is 5 knots slow. Given that airspeed behavior becomes unstable at speeds below minimum drag speed, and that L/Dmax occurs at Dmin, it makes sense to build in a buffer, landing performance notwithstanding, and thus, published flight manual approach speeds are above L/Dmax. 

Edited October 7, 2019 by Muscle2002

[Bigred]

7 hours ago, Muscle2002 said:

Every fighter I have flown or evaluated used AOA, but all, with the exception of the Super Hornet and Hornet, were flown in the region of "normal command" (front side) which is more intuitive to fly, IMO.

Do you mean have an AOA gage in the cockpit for reference, or fly an actual AOA approach? There's a difference.

Edited October 7, 2019 by Bigred

[Gazmo]

Do you mean have an AOA gage in the cockpit for reference, or fly an actual AOA approach? There's a difference.

Even the KC-135 has AOA gauges for both pilots. They aren't the most precise instruments in the world, but can be used in the event of a dual ADC failure (chances of that = slim to none). There is an arc at approach speed (.6 AOA). 1.0 units is stall. You really don't need airspeed or AOA to get the thing on the ground anyway. Known pitch and power settings along with an infamous full-flap burble will get you within 5 knots of approach speed every time.

[HuggyU2]

16 hours ago, Muscle2002 said:

 Given that airspeed behavior becomes unstable at speeds below minimum drag speed, and that L/Dmax occurs at Dmin, it makes sense to build in a buffer, landing performance notwithstanding, and thus, published flight manual approach speeds are above L/Dmax. 

I'm not a test pilot.  However, I have a fair amount of experience in a multitude of military powered-aircraft and can't think of one I've flown where this is the case.  

I've got about 6 sorties in the F-16, including a front seat flight where we did SFO's.  Although it has been 10 years... and everything is done primarily in AoA... I recall that approach speeds were ~150 KIAS and L/Dmax is 200 KIAS... which puts it in the same category as the Hornet / Super Hornet you mention above.  

Again, I'm sure I'm missing something.  Can you give some examples of military powered-airplanes where approach speed is above L/Dmax?

Edited October 7, 2019 by HuggyU2

[Bigred]

8 hours ago, Gazmo said:

18 hours ago, Bigred said:

Do you mean have an AOA gage in the cockpit for reference, or fly an actual AOA approach? There's a difference.

Even the KC-135 has AOA gauges for both pilots. They aren't the most precise instruments in the world, but can be used in the event of a dual ADC failure (chances of that = slim to none). There is an arc at approach speed (.6 AOA). 1.0 units is stall. You really don't need airspeed or AOA to get the thing on the ground anyway. Known pitch and power settings along with an infamous full-flap burble will get you within 5 knots of approach speed every time.

I guess I wasn’t too clear. I’m tracking most every military plane has some sort of AOA gage. My point is that, using the 135 as an example, I may fly an approach at 165kts and reference the AOA gage, but I’m not slaved to what it says precisely, I’m more concerned with airspeed.

In comparison, Navy guys fly a specific AOA all the way to the deck. Airspeed is important but AOA even more so since they don’t flare.

I’m sure the MD-11 has a flare at the bottom but from reading, it sounds a lot more pitch sensitive than other similar aircraft, hence why Navy guys may have been preferred.

At least, that’s totally my assumption and I’ve been AFU before and might be here as well. 

[Danger41]

In the few jets I’ve flown, you could do either. But only in the F-15 was it a specific units of AOA you’d fly instead of just on the green donut. The others have been airspeed or AOA. The Eagle also could calculate landing speed with something similar to the T-38 (I think it was 138+gross weight or something) but AOA units was much easier.

Do airliners give you the 1.3 Vs out of some computer and it varies each time or is it a consistent speed?