I am not a pilot, unless MS Flight Sim, some combat sims, and some space combat sims count, but I believe in the adage that any good landing is one you can walk away from. That said, I wouldn’t mind if the landing gear broke on landing and we had to walk across the tarmac to get back into the terminal. Then again, I also love turbulence, so a bit of a jouncer landing and a couple go-arounds don’t bother me any. I’m with Johhny LA that it’s fun to go through a thunderstorm. If you gave me the chance to go into a hurricane, either by descending into the eye from above or by going through it first, I’d love to go. I don’t get motion sick unless I’m also hot and/or dehydrated, and I’ve never come close to throwing up on a roller coaster. Give me six gees in the loops any day. A strong updraft or downdraft is just fun, as is side-to-side motion.
Heck, depending on where I am in the cabin and the airport I’m landing at, I probably will have my nose in a book. Some people just don’t fly well, and I don’t understand why. I hate a lot of the aspects of commerical flying, but as for flying in general, whether it be in a jet, commerical prop, or private plane, I enjoy it.
I’d like to clarify this. There’s flying into a thunderstorm, and then there’s flying into a thunderstorm! T-storms have a lot of convective turbulence. If you’re in a small aircraft, avoid them completely. If you’re in a large aircraft, avoid them. There are some storms that a large airliner can fly into safely and which the aircrews are prepared to handle. While my flight to MSY did have some close lightning bolts, we were not in the heart of the storm. Still plenty of turbulence there. I enjoy turbulence. I really do. But I would not like to, nor would I advise, flying into a cell if there is any danger of forces that are too extreme for the aircraft and aircrew.
I appreciate the air ‘professionals’ help on this thread, but I still think the pilot should have said something.
To a passenger, it is not normal to touch the runway, then takeoff again. Therefore I expect the pilot (whom I am paying) to let me know, as soon as practicable, what is happening.
I’m sure the pilot was busy powering up and taking off again. No doubt preparing a second landing involved checks and talking with the tower. But there are two pilots in the cockpit, and one of their duties is to look after the passengers.
A plane load of frightened people, who know something is wrong and who have not been reassured that anyone is in control, might do something stupid. Mobs do not exhibit reasoned intelligence.
Incidentally my mate has qualified as a private pilot. He took me up and I enjoyed the experience very much (including listening to radio communications through a headphone!).
While on final approach to a country airfield, he suddenly had to abort the landing (because some idiot started taxiing across the runway).
I said nothing and sat still, because he was obviously concentrating. After about 30 seconds, he calmly told me what had happened. (I know the other pilots had a lot more to do - but I would travel with my mate anytime - because he impressed me with his competence.)
If there is an emergency - or even a situation with a potential to become an emergency the ONLY obligation of a pilot is to fly the airplane. That takes precedence over everything else.
After a bad situation is (hopefully) avoided, then there is time to do a whole bunch of other stuff, but there the order of doing is mandated by, first and foremost, flying the airplane in a safe manner. After the airplane is on the ground, you still have to safely manuver through an airport, and yes, that is serious business. The worst collision between two 747’s occured on the ground (Tenerife).
Yes, if something wonky or terrifying happened in an airplane I’d like a calm, reassuring voice on the PA but I’ll take getting to the gate in one piece over that.
Having been on airplane that hit something on take off, resulting in some Bad Stuff happening (smoke, fire, etc.) In that case, the pilot actually DID speak on the intercom - and sounded frightened enough to piss his pants. You know, I could have done without that. If the captain is too angry or too frightened (yes, that does happen in bad situations - they’re human, too) to calmly address the passengers then he (or she) should not do so. Maybe have the chief flight attendant do so - at least say something like “We’re having a situation here, the pilots are dealing with it. Please remain calm.” Hell, why blame the pilot - aren’t flight attendents given that much leeway? Part of their job is to deal with the passengers, after all.
Wrong.
A competant pilot knows when to abort a landing and try again.
Even the best pilot has an occassional bad landing. We’re dealing with the real world, boys and girls, with unpredictable events, including unexpected wind gusts.
Dude, you can’t have it both ways - first you say the flight crew is reponsible, then you say their employer is.
In actual fact, it is the captain, a.k.a. the pilot-in-command (PIC), who is responsible for the flight. If the co-pilot screws up the PIC is going to catch hell for allowing the co-pilot to screw up.
Also, let’s get real here - no one INTENDED to “terrorize” anybody. Something scary, happened, yes, but it was not intentional. Ignored? Yeah, they could have told everyone after it was over that “yeah, that first touch-down wasn’t a good one - that’s why we went back up and did it again, because we care about your safety. We apologize for any concern. We waited until this point to speak with you because up until now we were focusing on making sure nothing else went wrong.” Yeah, they should have done something like that and they didn’t - I don’t see this as a criminal offense, though, or something worth suing over.
“Crosswind problems” are not usually reported to the NTSB because they qualify neither as accidents or incidents. This sort of thing doesn’t usually get in the newspapers, either, unless a reporter is on board or someone calls the paper.
No.
You divert to the best-equipped airport to deal with an emergency, which may, indeed, be a very busy airport. That’s OK - air traffic control will get the other traffic out of your way. When an emergency occurs a pilot is supposed to take whatever actions are necessary to maximize safety - not minimize inconvenience.
Having seen what’s left of a cartwheeled airplane up close, I can’t imagine you’d want a plane cartwheeling down the runway at any airport, busy or not.
I’m going to explain something for the beneift of the non-pilots, who probably don’t know it, but is so obvious to pilots they forget the rest of the world isn’t educated on the matter. This, by the way, applies to ALL airplanes of ANY size.
When an airplane is parked on the pavement all of the weight is on the wheels and the wings do not support the airplane (I said this was obvious - stay with me). When it’s in the air, all off the weight is supported by the wings, none by the wheels. When the wieght is on the wheels and the plane is moving - such as when slowly moving about between gate and runway - the wheels have enough traction to steer. When the airplane is flying - that is, wholly in the air and all the weight on the wings - then the “control surfaces” steer the airplane.
However, during both take-off and landing there is a period of time when the airplane is in an in-between state, the weight partially supported by both wings and wheels, but wholly supported by neither. And the steering mechanisms, likewise, are not wholly efficient, either. On the list of many things that go into a good take off or landing is the item that involves minimizing the amount of time you are in this state and safely managing directional control during that time.
On a windless day (a true rarity) this time is brief and there is little to throw the airplane off course. On a windy, gusty day, particularly with a crosswind, control is more difficult and this transition time is when a pilot is most likely to “lose directional control” as the safety guys put it. For this reason, when there is wind, gusts, or anything else to complicate steering you DO want to plant the wheels very firmly on the pavement - which passengers might interpret as a hard or bad landing - because that’s a quick way to get the weight from the wings onto the wheels and get out of that in-between state. The passengers may not like it as much, but their safety takes precedence over a fondness for feather-smooth landings in this sort of situation.
In a situation where the airplane is fish-tailing - such as described - if you’re close to flying speed then taking off again might be the safest course: speed up, get the weight on the wings, get flying where the flight controls again have full steering authority and maximize your control of the airplane. Again, get out of that in-between transitional state.
Afterward, when you’re back up in the air, there will be numerous things to do, including attempting to determine if any damage has been caused. When an airplane is low to the ground the pilot MUST remain focused strictly on flying the airplane.
I fly small, slow, simple aircraft. Nonetheless, I have had situations where so much is going so wrong that I simply do not have time OR attention to worry about the passengers. This is not me being mean to them - my first responsibility is to keep us safe, not quiet screaming, afraid people however much I want to stop and reassure them. When things calm down again I will speak with them - but that point in time may come later than a passenger expects because it’s not just a matter of avoiding a collision (as an example) - I have to make sure that we’re not heading into another bad situation as airport traffic dodges each other, the airplane is correctly set up for what we need to do next, and there are no other emergencies are occuring.
Yes, it is entirely plausible to me that the two guys up front in a passenger jet could be so busy with an aborted landing that yes, they don’t have time to talk with the passengers immediately. As far as there being two pilots up front - if the co-pilot really DID screw up thoroughly the captain might wind up doing the job of two pilots, to keep the guy from doing anything else wild. Perhaps the co-pilot was incapacitated somehow - it’s very rare, but it does happen.
The point is, no matter what sort of noises are coming from the passenger cabin the pilots’ job is to fly first, before all else.
Again, I thoroughly agree that something should have been said to the passengers prior to “deplaning” at the latest.
Ah yes, I’m a creep because I’m fed up with retards like you who sue at the drop of a hat. And also, I’m not worthy to partake in your silly “debate” because I haven’t been following it since it was in IMHO :rolleyes:.
I wish I could use img tags on this board, because the retard emoticon is much more suitable for you.
You’re absolutely right, it’s not normal to the passengers to do a “go around” (that’s what we call those manuvers). It’s not even normal for the flight crews.
I think us pilots are in agreement with you that something should have been said at some point.
I was on a flight once where we were doing the usual descent when all of a sudden I heard the engines rev up again. Now, knowing what I know, I knew what was coming - we weren’t landing, we were going to go back up again and come around for another landing. I said as much to my seat mate, who fired back with “you’re crazy - we’re still going down”. I said “Just you wait, we’ll go back up again soon enough, make a circle, and then we’ll land”. Sure enough, that’s what we did. At which point he starts up with “How did you know? How did you know?” Well, I’m a pilot. But that doesn’t mean I know why we did that, or if the pilot is avoiding an emergency or having an emergency. Yep, my heart was beating a little faster.
We also got into the "But you don’t look like a pilot argument, but that’s a different rant
It wasn’t until we were at the gate and the airplane at a complete halt, though, that the pilot got on the PA and explained a truck had pulled onto the runway and that’s why he aborted the landing.
Mmm… no, it doesn’t follow that if they had time to circle twice they had time to talk to the passengers. For one thing, they may have been talking to the tower. Or each other.
Aviation is a strange business. The truth is, keeping the customer happy is not always the best course to achieve the most important goal, which is to keep the customer alive. Any pilot - even those who do not fly commercially - can tell you stories about having to deal with folks who are enraged or upset that you are not giving them what they want because you are too busy giving them what they need - a safe flight.
Or, in some cases, no flight at all. I’ve got a friend who was being threatened by a musician of some fame who will not be named because this guy had HAD TO get to a concert and, dammit, he was paying to have that done, weather be damned. My friend finally shut him up by saying “I’m sure that’s what Buddy Holly said before HE got in the plane, too.”
I have never delibrately scared ANYONE in an airplane. I go to considerable trouble to make sure I do not do that to my passengers. Unfortuately, though, sometimes things happen and sometimes people get scared. I’m really sorry about that. But the mere fact you got scared is not grounds for a lawsuit from my viewpoint. If you are that delicate don’t fly.
Extraneous, you continue to reassert arguments in favor of suing yet utterly fail to address any of the arguments brought up by any of the posters. The only one you deemed worthy of a direct response is the one who dared give you the googly eyes.
My only conclusion is that you’re just not bothering to actually read some of the well crafted rebuttals by the actual pilots of the board.
What do you expect the courts to say? That a passenger’s happiness takes precedence over the life of everyone on board? Please. Look, you are not a pilot. You were not on this flight. You don’t know anybody who was on the flight. Actual pilots have posted, over and over, plausible explanations for what happened, and good reasons for not talking to the passengers. But you continue along undeterred by the forces of logic and reason, spewing crap about lawsuits and duty to passengers. What makes you think you know better than actual pilots with questions related to operating a fucking airplane?
Yes, they paid to be transported, along with their baggage, from point A to point B, safely, within a certain timeframe, and possibly with certain amenities (drinks, movie, etc.).
This is what they got.
Other things (pillows, magazines, BABYSITTING WORRY-WORT PASSENGERS) are “nice-to-haves”, no-one seems to disagree, but they are not IMO a contractual requirement, and certainly not sue-worthy.
I’m with coffeecat here. Pilot’s job is to look after the plane. Flight Attendants have the job of looking after passengers. It was the FAs who goofed.
I’m sure it was very frightening. As I mentioned in a previous post I’ve been the frightened passenger in the main cabin wondering if I was going to die. It’s horrible.
I am a little puzzled that nothing was said to the passengers. In my experience most flight crews do make an effort to explain things to passengers and maintain calm.
It’s also counter-intuitive for a lot of people when pilots don’t land immediately when something goes wrong. We tend to associate the ground with safety, but that’s not always true. Sometimes, the safest place to be is UP - but in those circumstances you often don’t have time for a brief lecture on aerodynamics, safety procedures, and what we’ve learned from 100 years of powered flight. You just do it and explain later. But it does increase the anxiety/fear in the passengers.
I wish people had more familiarity with flight, but they don’t. I do know that there have been times I’ve been riding as a passenger on a commercial flight and spent some time reassuring my fellow passengers that a noise was perfectly normal noise and was actually reassuring because it meant some mechanical part was working (example: that thud is the landing gear going down - it’s a good thud, it means the wheels are down and we can land now); or that the turbulence we just flew through, although strong enough to overturn drinks and stuff, was nowhere near strong enough to damage the airplane; and various other comforting messages.
I agree with you (and others) that this should have been done. Why it wasn’t I haven’t a clue.
Please do not judge all pilots by the possibly less than stellar performance of one flight crew. Most pilots I know are very aware that they are responsible for everyone on board. Believe me, the first time that sinks in, it is a very sobering experience.
After the incident I mentioned earlier, where I was on an airplane that hit something just after takeoff, I didn’t get on a commercial aircraft for seven years, and that only after I had started flight training to become a pilot myself. The reason? Fear. Yes, a pilot-in-training afraid of flying the airlines. I have a lot of empathy for fearful passengers, having been one myself.
I tell people who are afraid that it’s OK - after all, very few non-pilots know much, if anything, about how airplanes work or what is and isn’t safe. You don’t know, you don’t have any control, and it’s normal to be anxious or fearful in such circumstances. I hope your son does try to fly again rather than take the train “for three days” but if he doesn’t I will certainly understand - I rode Amtrak for several years after my scare.
Most of them do. As I said, do not let the actions of a few tarnish the reputation of many.
Gee, I hope I never feel like that about a passenger. Sure, you may be afraid of something you don’t need to be afraid of, but it’s MY responsibility to avoid scaring you. If I do scare you, even unintentionally, then on some level I’ve failed to do a complete job. Well, yeah, if I have to do something extreme to avoid a mid-air collision or something equally dangerous I will, even if it will scare the spit out of you, but I’d certainly give you an explanation afterward. If you are afraid you are afraid - that’s NOT “overly emotional”, that’s how you feel. It would be like berating someone for getting airsick - it’s not something you can help. (And, to be honest, EVERYONE gets airsick sooner or later. I once almost puked on my checkride examiner. Me, nervous? Naw… Great first impression.)
Likewise, every pilot I’ve ever met has been scared in the air at one point or another, we know how bad that feels and the good ones - hell, even the mediocre ones - avoid doing that to passengers and if it does happen, try to make amends. Unfortunately, because pilots are human beings, you get some less than respectable types in the mix.
If you’re afraid, you’re afraid. Don’t let anyone tell you that you’re being foolish. Now, you may be afraid of something you don’t need to fear, but berating you won’t solve the problem. If someone wants to face their fears I’m more than willing to help them but it’s not something someone should be forced to do.
Have you the slightest clue what, specifically, grounds the lawsuit might allege?
In other words, generally a lawsuit must allege that someone owed you a legal duty of care, which was breached, and as a result you suffered injury. If somehits hits your car and you suffer a broken bumper and a broken wrist, you’re in good shape to sue: the law imposes a duty not to hit other cars.
In this case, what legal duty do you imagine was breached?