wats the big deal about jets ?

[Danou_71]

How many real airlines still operate a 707???

G'day 411a,

Edited - you know why

BTW, every plane have their down turn and limitations: take the Saab 2000, an aircraft I used to fly before, we flew to a small RWY in Switzerland, Lugano(LSZA) 1'100m long with mountains all around and a lake at its end: now imagine the take off, full PAX and one engine die at V1+5 and auto-feather inop ... You better to be quick to manually feather this huge prop or you'll taste the water or the "Granitus congestus", depending in which direction you are taking off...

I'm sure it is just a matter of time to get used to a new cockpit layout, engine performance and procedures from a new turbo-prop to an old jet, and vice versa for a pilot coming from an old jet to a full EFIS and a fly-by-wire turbo-prop like the Saab 2000.

Merry X-mas,

D_71

[411A]

Danou_71.

And a Merry Xmas to you.

My message was intended to illustrate why airlines require prior experience on previous types. Oddly enough, this seems to be even more necessary now than in the past, due to small training budgets and operating economy enforced by the financial types.
Additionally, you might be surprised at the requirements for crews for older types. Three weeks ago for example there appeared an advertisement for 707, 727 and DC8 crews in Flight International, and suspect that there will be more.
Having trained more than a few in the 707, 'tis interesting indeed to watch folks master this old aircraft....and the smile on their face when they succeed.

[BlueEagle]

trytofly

I think you have completely missed the point here, 411A described exactly what you might expect to happen in the big four engine jets that bridged the gap between the big props and todays 'Glass'

There are still quite a lot of B707 flying and as fellow aviators sharing that airspace I, for one, would be very happy to know that 411A was flying the B707, or men of similar experience - yes, at the back of Flight International you will still see, on occasion, adverts for B707, DC8 crew, (Danou_71?).

Not quite sure what career path you have mapped out for yourself but don't be to eager to mock, one day the only job you can get may be on a generation of aircraft you thought were in a museum!

[trytofly]

BlueEagle

well my response obviously breached the level of acceptance and so has gone forever.

Still, you obviously got to read it...but I think you have missed my point. ( Made too strongly I now see ). Did I actually say anything about the merits or otherwise of old aircraft or pilots of an earlier generation ????? Absolutely NOT. So where you're coming from ...........who knows !!

I enthuse over the old classics, and love to see them on those rare occassions. What a shame I have to explain to the younger pilots what type of aircraft they're looking at.


Merry Christmas

[Captain Stable]

trytofly, it was I who removed your earlier post. You made no constructive point whatsoever in it. It was simply a verbal attack on another contributor.

I will not tolerate such behaviour in these forums. Take your vitriol elsewhere if you wish to indulge yourself in it. Otherwise please ensure that all responses here are given in a civil, constructive and professional manner.

[LordyLordy]

“Then, and only then...will you hope to understand the 'big deal about jets'”

411A would you not concur that the pistons and turboprops of that period also had their foibles and were probably just as demanding in their own ways. I don’t believe that the difficulties in handling older generation jets justifies the requirement of many airlines for jet hours.

If recruiting for an airline with modern jets with glass flightdecks a guy with time on a 2-pilot glass flightdeck turboprop would represent a lower training risk than someone with jet time on an aircraft with a larger crew and older flightdeck.


lordylordy

[rawmac]

What's the big deal about jets?

A question I was going to ask myself.

But my point is - why are so many pilots/wannabes et al obsessed with getting onto jets? Is it only the money or are they really the pinnacle of all flying experience?

I'd be interested to hear if the rewards - not only monetary - are worth giving up a nice lifestyle/remuneration compromise in the 'lower' levels of the profession?

Thanks in anticipation.

[john_tullamarine]

trytofly, RoboAlbert, and anyone else we unintentionally upset from time to time ..

First, I haven't been following this thread daily so I missed some of the detail ... but that is not critical to the post ..

Chaps, might I suggest a few deep breaths and/or count to ten when the blood pressure rises ..

We all have to acknowledge that

(a) there are posts which can irritate us as individuals for this reason or that ... and I include us all .. as mods we are no different to anyone else on the forum except that we get blamed by all and sundry when anything is perceived to go wrong ...

(b) as moderators we do our best but regularly get it not quite as right as we might like ... guess we are just human and subject to all the run of the mill human foibles ... same as everyone else.

(c) all we, as mods, ask ... is that we all should try to be rational and deliberate in our commentary on the more "serious" of the forums .. lest they degenerate into the abyss of the more entertaining places where we go from time to time for relief from the real world and its problems ...

Merry Christmas all ... and a better year to come in '04

[Anthony Carn]

.............a guy with time on a 2-pilot glass flightdeck turboprop would represent a lower training risk than someone with jet time on an aircraft with a larger crew and older flightdeck.

Disagree, not because of the jet aspect, but because of the glass cockpit element.

Glass cockpits are bad news in one respect.....

Very difficult to stay properly practised in raw data flying.

Even worse, pilots who left an approved school with only a few dozen hours or so lifetimes experience of raw data instrument flying, then straight into a glass cockpit, are really up the creek without a paddle on that dark windy night when it all goes blank.

Potentially one of the biggest problems relating to pilot skills is being created right now by glass cockpits.


As for the training aspect, if you can fly an old fashioned aircraft, then a glass cockpit should be no problem. The reverse is'nt quite as certain, for the reasons given above.

[Ignition Override]

Anthony Carn said it better than I had hoped to.

Pilots in the (especially) later Airbus and Boeing types are said to lose their piloting skills, especially when only flying ILS approaches.

I'm certainly not the best pilot, but if I flew for years in a later-generation glass cockpit, it could be a very risky proposition to divert to an alternate and have serious problems with any of the autopilots or autothrottles, as the fuel burns down to reserve with some contingency left over, while vectored into an uncontrolled airport. How about for a procedure turn in the mountains of western Montana on a winter night ?


But I suppose that a brand-new airplane with the latest in automation is the solution for this situation, jet engines or not.........

[ZFT]

411A

<<Gusty winds on final? No problem, the yaw damper will take care of this...wrong. It had to be switched OFF at 1000agl on landing, leaving you to arm wrestle the pig all the way to the ground. The 39inch ventral fin helped some, but not much.>>

Wasn't this the A model only? Series YD as opposed to parallel on B & C models. Also if I recall correctly, you could have either AP on or YD on but not both as same switch on AP controller

[Panama Jack]

Captain Stable wrote:

Even had to sleep in the a/c on occasions.

Ah yes, I know what you mean. Did the night cargo "thing" and it sure makes the time to destination go by faster and the time in flight at 4:00 am go by less painfully, doesn't it?

[411A]

ZFT,
All straight pipe (non fan) series B707's had the parallel yaw damper fitted (either yaw damper or autopilot, as you indicated), whereas some (but not all) fan powered (non-advanced) models had the series yaw damper, which remained engaged for all flight regimes.

The B/C advanced models had many improvements.
A larger vertical stabilizer/rudder, improved Q-feel for the rudder power, series (ie: full time) yaw damper, advanced cowl, full span leading edge devices, improved trailing edge/fillet flaps, and most important, more responsive engines (JT3D series), yielding much improved airfield performance.
An altogether different aeroplane.

Did my original training on the B-advanced model, then asked the old-timers at PanAmerican to indicate what I needed to know about the older aircraft, as these are what I would be flying.
They mentioned they were a bear to fly...and they were right.

[ZFT]

411A,

Thanks for the correction. (I always seem to confuse series & parallel YDs)

Just remembered another difference between A and B/C models - flaps settings.

As an aside, I wonder if there are any A models still flying?

[411A]

ZFT,

Flap settings changed with the newer design as you indicated.
Early aircraft used 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 degree increments, whereas B/C advanced aircraft used 14, 25, 40, 50...a few early fan powered aircraft used 17 instead of 14, and a few of these had the 39 inch ventral fin as well.
Many permutations.

So far as I know, the only straight pipe models flying are with the Israeli air force, altho, some (most) of these are being converted to JT3D power (engine and pylon change).

The early model airframes were prone to rather severe skin cracks, mostly in the fuselage crown. The first fix were external straps over the affected area (good for 2500 cycles) then reskining was required. In later aircraft, different alloys were used, as well as a heavier gauge skin.
One thing that amazed me was the strength of the main gear, landing with drift on did not seem to be all that much of a problem. A PanAmerican pilot even landed one with a fractured (separated) side brace, in a gusty crosswind, yet the gear did not collapse on touchdown.
Having said this, if the landing gear was extended manually, the F/E always had to go below in the lower 41 and set the pin, otherwise the nose gear would collapse as the nose was lowered. Caught out a few.
Have left out mention about the 'water wagons'...ugh, to be avoided whenever possible. In my opinion, a bad design that created a LOT of noise...and not much else.

The old 707 was (is) a truly remarkable aircraft, that served their owners well....for a very long time. The Boeing design guys learned a LOT from the DeHavilland Comet problems, for sure.
Hats off to these folks...absolutely.

[Ignition Override]

Back in 1965-66 in the US, some major airlines were so desperate that they hired some pilots with only 300 or so hours. One pilot had to wait until he was 21 years old, and checked out as 727 captain at TWA around age 25. This was decades before a few situations (i.e. United) by which some US airlines were under court-orders to fill certain quotas for females... etc, whether the pilots had 4,000 hours multi-engine, or just 300 in a C-172....

[witchdoctor]

Nah, its the aerial photo guys in the C150's at the bottom of the ladder. Down in the mud with the FJ guys!

Lovin' it too - really don't wanna go long haul, too dull. I'll take the cash though.