Civil

‘Those bright lights we thought were from an aircraft on approach suddenly and almost instantaneously moved horizontally across the night sky by maybe 35 to 40 degrees and at a considerable distance! Nothing could move that fast!,’ John Chesire, former Boeing 737 pilot.

Ever wonder what kinds of unusual objects pilots see from the air?

With a truly unique vantage point, they’ve reported a range of strange sightings, including geoglyphs, drones, and… UFOs.

Pilots have claimed to see UFOs (unidentified flying objects) for decades – sightings usually involve objects flying in a formation or bright lights, as John Chesire, former US Navy fighter pilot and Former Captain, First Officer, and Flight Engineer for a few US airlines, says on Quora.

‘I saw one (UFO) many years ago. However, before I explain that one sighting, let me preface it by saying that over my four decades of flying for both the military and the airlines, I have indeed seen quite a number of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs). Nevertheless, every one of these UFO sightings was soon quickly identified by me or by others later as something easily explainable and mundane, and thus no longer “unidentified”… except this singular one I now describe:

‘I was a captain flying a B-737 late at night on a very short leg from Las Vegas (LAS) to Los Angeles (LAX). This was sometime in the 1990s. It was late at night and the more normal heavy air traffic around LAX was greatly reduced at this late hour.’

‘At the time we were early into our descent into LAX via the old Civet Arrival. It was a clear night and a smooth and comfortable flight. Passing through 18,000 feet/5486m we noticed what we thought was another aircraft well off to our left and high above us. We had no other traffic to observe than this one. While we were on perhaps a 30-degree intercept to the final arrival course, this aircraft high and to our left appeared to be on the normal, straight-in course to LAX. We decided this approaching aircraft would not even be close to being a conflict for us since it was well off in the distance. We would intercept the final inbound course well ahead of him. Since he was not a conflict Approach Control never mentioned him to us either.’

‘Although this traffic off to our left was on the normally expected radial and altitude for the LAX arrival, one thing caught both my First Officer as odd. We were passing below 18,000 feet in our descent. This is the time and altitude that airliners will normally turn on their landing lights for a “see-and-be-seen” standard collision avoidance procedure. However, although this other aircraft was still well above us, he already had all his bright landing lights on. Quietly I wondered to myself why his lights were on so very early. It seemed very odd and I wondered to myself if there was a reason for this.’

He continues;

‘Switching our radios from Center to LAX Approach Control we turned our attention away from that strange aircraft and concentrated on our approach at hand. Nevertheless, I naturally and briefly glanced a few times at our unusual inbound traffic.

‘Right before we made the right turn to intercept the final approach course, I once again glanced up at our traffic. What I saw I would never forget! Those bright lights we thought were from an aircraft on approach suddenly and almost instantaneously moved horizontally across the night sky by maybe 35 to 40 degrees and at a considerable distance! Nothing could move that fast! It defied physics. I turned to my First Officer and asked, “Did you see that?” His eyes were as big as saucers as he said, “I sure did!”

‘There was no craft that I knew of or anything I could ever imagine moving that far and that fast across the sky, and then stopping instantly without any apparent slowing, dead in space. Moreover, there is no man or beast that could ever survive the amount of G-forces both from that extreme acceleration or the almost instantaneous stop. There was no logical explanation for what we had witnessed. There was even no illogical explanation either. To this day decades later I cannot explain what exactly we saw.

‘A few seconds after it had made this astonishing move, it made another much shorter and very quick jump a couple of degrees downward. By this time, we were almost passing through the localizer and we had to turn away from this ‘thing’. As I looked back over my shoulder, I saw it move again horizontally toward its earlier position rapidly, but nowhere near the almost instantaneous movement across the great span we saw earlier. I later wondered if maybe it was the reflection from some kind of searchlight, but it was a clear night with no clouds to reflect upon. Also, it had multiple and distinguishable lights, just like an airliner’s.

‘We never reported this incident although I have thought about it over the years many times. Really what could we say? Besides people look at you funny when you say you “saw something” but don’t know what. It also involves a lot of paperwork too, we assumed. So, we kept quiet. Curiously I do not even remember my First Officer and I ever talking about it later. It was just one of those unexplained things that we could not explain and did not even want to try.’

Chesire concludes;

‘Ironically the following week I flew the same flight at the same time but we thankfully saw no UFOs this time. What was very curious though was when we switched frequencies, there was a lot of chatter – something unusual for that usually slow time of night. All we could tell from the chatter was that one or more crews “had seen something.” There were transmissions from several aircraft that said, “Yeah we saw it too.” Then Center or Approach came up and asked each aircraft if they wanted to make a report. In rapid sequence, they all said: “negative.” I never did either.’

Photo by Aero Icarus from Zürich, Switzerland via Wikipedia and Unknown

In 1987 Tom Cruise saved his co-star Elisabeth Shue’s life by stopping her from walking into a spinning helicopter blade on the set of the comedy-drama movie Cocktail.

In 1987 Tom Cruise saved his co-star Elisabeth Shue’s life by stopping her from walking into a spinning helicopter blade on the set of the comedy-drama movie Cocktail, an aerial camera operator on the set of the film, Bill Bennett, recalled last April in a Facebook group called Crew Stories, The Sun newspaper reported.

Bennett explained that the crew was shooting an aerial scene from a helicopter. They would briefly land the helicopter after each take and Cruise and Shue would approach to watch playback recordings and receive notes from the director.

Bennett said that the pilot would keep the tail rotor at the back of the helicopter running as the helicopter would only be grounded for a few moments. the back of the helicopter was a no-go area because the blades appear invisible as they spin but “if you walk into it,” he said, “it will kill you instantly.” But one time after Cruise and Shue watched playback footage of a scene, Shue “took off suddenly, running towards the back of the helicopter.”

Cruise, who in 1987 was already a fully trained chopper and jet pilot, averted the danger by rugby tackling her to the floor, avoiding certain instant death for Shue.

“Tom is a pilot, rated in both airplanes and helicopters and instantly saw the danger. He lunged after her, but only was able to grab her legs, tackling her to the ground,” Bennett said. “He rolled her over, dragging her at the same time, and you could see the momentary anger on her face while she was yelling ‘Why did you do that?’

Bennett continued: “But by that time he is pointing at the tail rotor which is now a couple of feet away, screaming at her that she almost died. At that point, she turned white, and he pulled her back towards the front of the helicopter and they walked away. All of us in the helicopter were quite shaken up by the close call, but there was nothing to be said. Tom had, in that instant, truly saved her life.”

In 1987 when the incident took place, “mandatory safety meetings were not commonly done,” Bennett recalled.

“If it were the current day, there would’ve been a very formal safety meeting that would take place before the helicopter ever arrived, discussing all the dangers of working around helicopters,” he said.

This story was spotted by writer Mike Timm, who sent it to “Mission Impossible” director Christopher McQuarrie who confirmed the story with Cruise, The Sun also reported.

According to Insider, this isn’t the first time reports of Cruise saving a life on a film set have been made public. In April in fact, it was reported that a cameraman who slipped from the carriage of a moving train while filming “Mission: Impossible 7” in the UK was saved by the “Top Gun” actor.

Top Gun: Maverick, the sequel to the 1986 action drama that sees Tom Cruise reprising his role as Pete Mitchell, is slated to hit the theaters on Nov. 19, 2021.

As already reported, Paramount Studios delayed “Top Gun: Maverick” from 2020 to this year in a dramatic shift in film release dates amid the surging coronavirus pandemic.

Top Gun 2 which Paramount had already delayed because of the COVID-19 crisis from Jun. 24 to Dec. 23, 2020, had been delayed again from Jul. 2 to Nov. 19, 2021.

The internet was set ablaze on Dec. 16, 2019, when the latest trailer of Top Gun: Maverick debuted (the first one was released on Jul. 18, 2019).

The two-minute trailer boasts blockbuster scenes with Maverick taking to the skies in F/A-18 Super Hornet, F-14 Tomcat fighter aircraft, and an ‘Area 51’-type jet.

Facing an uncertain future and confronting the ghosts of his past, Maverick is drawn into a confrontation with his own deepest fears, culminating in a mission that demands the ultimate sacrifice from those who will be chosen to fly it.

Photo by Paramount and Buena Vista Pictures

‘As a testament of how good the plane was, most of the Boeing 757’s built were still in service as late as 2018,’ Glenn Tomchik, former Boeing employee who worked on the 757 program

The twin-engine, medium-range Boeing 757 was up to 80 percent more fuel efficient than the older 727 jetliners it was designed to replace but retained the 727’s short-field capability. The 757-200 carried up to 228 passengers and had a range of approximately 3,900 nautical miles (7,222 kilometers).

The first 757 rolled out of the Renton, Wash., factory in 1982. On Mar. 29, 1991, a 757, powered by only one of its engines, took off, circled and landed at the 11,621-foot-high (3542-meter-high) Gonggar Airport in Tibet. The airplane performed perfectly although the airfield was in a box canyon surrounded by peaks more than 16,400 feet (4998 meters) high.

Yet, despite its remarkable capabilities, in late 2003, Boeing decided to end 757 production. On Apr. 27, 2005 in fact, Boeing concluded the 23-year run of the 757 passenger airplane by delivering the final one to Shanghai Airlines. The airplane was the 1,050th Boeing 757.

Why didn’t Boeing develop the 757 instead of the older 737? Why did they not envisage longer fuselage/higher capacity versions of the 757 like Airbus did of the A321?

‘I was working on the 757 program when its fate was being determined. The very simple answer to this question is that the 757 was too expensive,’ Glenn Tomchik, former Boeing employee who worked on the 757 program, explains on Quora.

‘The A320 was introduced in 1988 and the A321 in 1994. The 737 Classics (-300, -400, -500) had a few large shortcomings relative to them. First the range of 1500 miles vs A320’s 3000+ was too short for trans-US or trans-Europe flights. Also flying at .74 Mach caused air traffic problems with all the other aircraft flying at .8+ mach. The 757 had better range but was also significantly larger. Originally Boeing had planned to offer a 160 seat 757–100, but airlines weren’t interested and it was never developed.

‘So the answer in late 1993 to launch the 737 Next Generation (-600, -700, -800) which put on a new larger wing which increased fuel capacity, reduced drag, and allowed the plane to cruise over .8 mach. Updated engines and avionics made the 737NG very competitive, and it shared commonality for pilot training with the Classics. Over 7000 737NG’s were sold (vs. 1000 Classics), so obviously this wasn’t a bad decision. But the NG posed a problem for the 757: the 737 (and A321) could now perform 80% of the missions it was used for previously, but the 737 was 20% cheaper to purchase, even when adjusted for passenger count. For an airline the purchase or leasing costs account for half of their total costs. So why was this?

‘Most of the strengths of the 757 – such as high thrust-to-weight, 757/767 common flight deck and systems, and high engine clearance come at a cost (The tall gear was to keep flight deck the same height of the 767 allowing common pilot rating). The 737 and A320 have a pair of two wheel main gear, which limits their MTOW to about 200K (the A321’s). Four wheel trucks are used by the 757 as well as much larger A330’s and 787’s with up to 550K+ MTOW. Landing gear by volume is the heaviest part of the airframe and bigger gear requires more wheel well volume which adds significant weight to the fuselage. The wheel wells are two big holes in the most highly loaded part of the fuselage which requires a heavy keel and top and rear pressure bulkheads. Having a tall, heavy, and expensive landing gear puts it at a disadvantage to the smaller planes.’

Tomchik continues;

‘The 757 had a first generation super-critical airfoil wing that volume limited its fuel capacity and hence range. It would have been relatively easy to increase the gross weight (which was done for the 757–300) but to increase range would require body fuel tanks which has drawbacks (Boeing has never used them for commercial models), but the A321XLR uses them. Although many talks about the 737 was from the 60’s, the wing is actually newer than the A320’s and the fuselage was replaced with newer alloys and production methods.

‘Engine cost is directly proportional to thrust so the larger engines also drive up the cost. Engines in the 35–45K thrust range (the 757 size) originally were adapted from the three- and 4-engine airplanes (L1011, 747). By the 2000 time frame wide bodies engines were using much higher thrust and there was no new engine designs available to adapt to the 757. The CFM56 used by the 737 and A320 had an excellent performance record and no other engine came close to the production volumes which gave it good economies of scale.

‘Finally, the 757 was originally developed post-70’s oil crisis and prior to US airline deregulation, so the airframe was designed for light weight with less regard for cost.

‘By 2000, the 757 was only selling to a few markets that required its take-off performance (Uzbekistan), high capacity single-aisle (European charters), and Freighters (UPS, DHL). Production rates were cut to the point is was barely profitable, but the company remained committed to the program and was in the process of moving fuselage production to Wichita (where the 737 fuselage is built) when 9/11 occurred. Post 9/11 airlines were in serious trouble, several going bankrupt. Boeing slashed 737 production from 300/yr to 175/yr. The 767 only survived with the hope of the Tanker contract, and the 757 demand was too low. The A320 had a large portion of non-US airlines, and their production rate remained constant and for the first time surpassed the 737 production rates. The decision was made in 2002 to complete production of the remaining orders and production ended in 2004.’

Tomchik concludes;

‘Updated versions continued to be studied in later years, but to compete with the A321 it would need a significant performance advantage and all the changes required make the development costs too high. As a testament of how good the plane was, most of the 757’s built were still in service as late as 2018.’

Photo by Bill Abbott, Rolf Wallner and Riyad Filza via Wikipedia

Of the 1,574 747s built up to December of 2022 (when the final 747 left Boeing’s Everett Factory), somewhere between 22 and 28, depending on what you want to count, were destroyed in accidents

The 747 was the result of the work of some 50,000 Boeing people. Called “the Incredibles,” these were the construction workers, mechanics, engineers, secretaries and administrators who made aviation history by building the Boeing 747 — the largest civilian airplane in the world — in roughly 16 months during the late 1960s.

First flight occurred on Feb. 9, 1969, followed by an extensive test program and it became a mainstay of the world’s international airlines.

The 747 triggered a revolution in air travel and represents a significant milestone in the evolution of aviation design.

According to a detailed post by aviation expert Dan Birchall;

• ‘Of the 1,574 747s built up to December of 2022 (when the final 747 left Boeing’s Everett Factory), somewhere between 22 and 28, depending on what you want to count, were destroyed in accidents.
• 22 have permanently stopped flying due to crashing into things,
• 4 have exploded or disintegrated in mid-air,
• 1 has been shot down, and
• 1 has been destroyed by another 747 (one of the 22 noted above) crashing into it.

‘I’ll give more detail on these 28 below. In addition to these, the Flight Safety Foundation’s Aviation Safety Network database lists another 130 “occurrences” and another 35 “hull losses” involving 747s since 1970.

‘I had to actually read through all 158 “occurrences,” though, because: that database includes not only accidents, but also hijackings, criminal acts, and “other,” and there is no equivalence between the terms “occurrence,” “hull loss” and “crash.”

‘There are, after all, tons of bad things that can happen to an airplane when it’s not even flying. You might think that the part on the ground is easy, but way more 747s have suffered substantial damage during aborted takeoffs, landing overruns (bon soir, lagoon!), trying to taxi on ice, trying to taxi without ice, trying to taxi while someone else thinks they’re cleared for takeoff (more on that below), being pushed back by an airport tug, waiting for the jetbridge while parked, or even being cleaned.

‘There are also many, many cases of 747s that were repaired and returned to service even after they banged their tails while taking off or landing, or landed safely after parts — up to and including engines — fell off in-flight, or landed so hard an engine hit the runway and was torn off (must’ve been ex-Navy?)’

Birchall continues;

‘I’ll begin with a few that didn’t just crash — you can decide for yourself whether these count:

• HL7442 (Korean Air Lines) was shot down by a Soviet Su-15 fighter 1983–09–01.
• VT-EFO (Air India) was blown up in flight, 1985–06–23. (Air India Flight 182)
• N739PA (Pan Am) was blown up in flight, 1988–12–21. (Pan Am Flight 103)
• N93119 (TWA) exploded, probably due to a short circuit igniting vapor in the fuel tank, 1996–07–17. (TWA Flight 800)
• B-18255 (China Airlines) suffered a tail strike on 1980–02–07 and was repaired, but not in accordance with Boeing’s manuals. It apparently disintegrated at high altitude over the ocean, 2002–05–25.

‘Then there are 22 definite crashes, involving 23 747s — because one crash famously involved a 747 crashing into another 747:

• D-ABYB (Lufthansa) crashed 1km after takeoff on 1974–11–20 due to flaps being set wrong.
• 5–8104 (Iranian Air Force) was struck by lightning, causing a fuel vapor explosion and crash on 1976–05–09.
• PH-BUF (KLM) collided with taxiing N736PA (Pan Am) at takeoff speed due to misunderstood tower instructions on 1977–03–27. Both were destroyed — and yes, technically N736PA didn’t crash; it was just taxiing along. (Tenerife airport disaster)
• VT-EBD (Air India) crashed into the ocean after takeoff after instrument failure led to improper pilot inputs, 1978–01–01.
• JA8119 (Japan Air Lines) bounced and hit its tail while landing 1978–02–06. Substantial damage was repaired, but the repaired portion later failed during flight resulting in loss of control and a crash into a hillside on 1985–08–12.
• HL7445 (Korean Air Lines) crashed short of the runway and caught fire 1979–03–23.
• HK-2910 (Avianca) crashed into a hill in Spain due to poor navigation and miscommunication with approach, 1983–11–27.
• ZS-SAS (South African Airways) crashed into the ocean after an in-flight fire, 1987–11–28.
• N807FT (Flying Tiger Cargo) crashed into a hill due to misunderstood approach instructions, 1989–02–19.
• B-198 (China Airlines Cargo) crashed into a hill while attempting to return to airport after an engine fell off and control was lost, 1991–12–29.
• 4X-AXG (El Al Cargo) crashed into an apartment tower while attempting to return to airport after two engines fell off and control was lost, 1992–10–04.
• HZ-AIH (Saudi Arabian Airlines) crashed after takeoff into an Air Kazakhstan flight that was descending for arrival and had failed to maintain its assigned altitude, 1996–11–12.
• HL7468 (Korean Air Lines) crashed into a hill 3.3 miles short of the runway due to pilot error and a software patch to the altitude warning system at the approach control radar center.
• HL7451 (Korean Air Cargo) crashed after takeoff due to instrument failure leading to improper pilot inputs, 1999–12–22.
• 9V-SPK (Singapore Airlines) crashed as it was taking off due to using the wrong runway, which had construction equipment and barriers on it, 2000–10–31.
• 9G-MKI (MK Airlines Cargo) crashed 700m short of the runway due to failure to follow approach procedures, 2001–11–27.
• 9G-MKG (MK Airlines Cargo) crashed 100m after takeoff due to takeoff weight being calculated incorrectly, resulting in incorrect thrust and speed settings, 2004–10–14.
• N714CK (Kalitta Cargo) lost two engines after takeoff and crashed into a farm, 2008–07–07.
• N571UP (UPS Cargo) crashed after an in-flight fire, 2010–09–03.
• HL7604 (Asiana Cargo) crashed after an in-flight fire, 2011–07–28.
• N949CA (National Air Cargo) crashed after takeoff from Bagram Airfield due to poorly-restrained cargo breaking loose, 2013–04–29.
• TC-MCL (ACT/Turkish Cargo) crashed into a slope 930 meters past its destination runway, 2017–01–16.

Birchall concludes;

‘You’ll notice that it’s been 18 years since a passenger 747 crashed. The airlines that still have them in passenger service are pretty careful nowadays — and cargo has gotten less well-behaved.’

Photo by Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives and unknown via War History Online

Despite both aircraft attempting to avoid each other, with the Pan Am Boeing 747 veering sharply onto the grass and the KLM Boeing 747 pulling up, they were unable to avoid the collision

The 747 was the result of the work of some 50,000 Boeing people. Called “the Incredibles,” these were the construction workers, mechanics, engineers, secretaries and administrators who made aviation history by building the 747 — then the largest civilian airplane in the world — in roughly 16 months during the late 1960s.

The incentive for creating the giant 747 came from reductions in airfares, a surge in air-passenger traffic and increasingly crowded skies.

On Mar. 27, 1977 two Boeing 747s were involved in the deadliest incident in aviation history.

On that day, a KLM Boeing 747 and a Pan Am Boeing 747 collided on the tarmac at the Tenerife Airport, resulting in the deaths of 583 people.

The accident happened when KLM flight 4805, carrying 248 passengers and crew, attempted to take off from the same runway where Pan Am flight 1736, which had 396 people on board, was taxiing.

Due to bad weather, the pilots on the two planes were unable to see each other from a distance and were relying on air traffic control to guide them.

The error was only spotted when the KLM flight was just 2,000ft away from the Pam Am plane – but it was already too late.

Seconds before crashing, Pan Am pilot Victor Grubbs was recorded saying: “Look at him! Goddamn, that son of a bitch is coming!”

Despite both aircraft attempting to avoid each other, with the Pan Am plane veering sharply onto the grass and the KLM Boeing 747 pulling up, they were unable to avoid the collision.

As explained in extensive piece published by The Sun, the KLM aircraft’s undercarriage and engines hit the top of the Pan Am plane at speed, resulting in a catastrophic crash.

Pan Am co-captain Robert Bragg, who died in 2017, told BBC’s Witness in 2016: “When he hit us, it was a very soft boom.

“I then looked up for the fire control handles and that’s when I noticed the top of the aeroplane was gone.”

Robert managed to escape along with 61 lucky passengers.

He explained: “I jumped to the ground, 40 feet from the cockpit and thanked the lord I landed on grass.

“One poor lady jumped first and everyone else jumped on her, broke her back and both legs and both arms.”

After five minutes, the fuel tank blew up, sending flames “250 feet in the air,” as the aircraft fell apart.

The collision of the two planes was attributed to a number of issues.

Earlier that day, a bomb explosion at Gran Canaria Airport that injured eight people, followed by a second bomb threat by the Canary Islands Independence Movement, led to extra planes being diverted to the airport in Tenerife.

With a large number of aircraft landing, the entrance to the main runway was blocked.

It meant that planes were forced to taxi on the runway itself, before making a 180 degree turn to take off.

It was also a foggy day, meaning a much lower visibility for pilots.

Because of this, Pan Am missed their assigned turn off at exit three and taxied to exit four instead, keeping them on the runway for much longer than expected.

However, what were also factored in the final incident report were the key phrases used by pilots and air traffic control which caused confusion and misunderstanding.

The incident report filed in 1977 explained that there was a breakdown in communication due to the ambiguous use of the words “okay” and “take off”, as well as the different accents and languages involved.

The report gives an example of the problem this caused during the incident: “The controller then said, “Okay (pause) stand by for takeoff, I will call you.”

“On the KLM CVR, the portion of this transmission following the word ‘okay’ is overlayed by a high pitched squeal, and the tone of the controller’s voice is somewhat distorted, though understandable.”

The report said: “We believe that nothing after the word ‘okay’ passed the filters of the Dutch crew, thus they believed the controller’s transmission approved their announced action in taking off.”

Pilots are now required to learn “radiotelephony”, also known as Aviation English, which features roughly 300 words and instructions on when and how to use them.

Roger, for example, means message received – but it doesn’t mean the receiver understands the instruction, or that they are planning to comply.

Instead, a pilot might say Roger and then repeat the instruction back to the ATC to make sure both sides are clear on the situation – or they could say Roger and explain why they can’t follow the instruction or if they don’t understand. Pilots only confirm that they will follow the instructions given when they say Wilco (for will comply).

Words that have ambiguous meanings such as “okay”, which could be misinterpreted, are not part of Aviation English.

Another issue that was highlighted was the authority in the cabin – the co-pilot on the KLM flight was relatively junior and didn’t have the authority to challenge the captain’s decisions in the cabin.

So when he highlighted a possible miscommunication, he was ignored by the captain.

Since then, the co-pilots, and even the crew, have been given greater power to challenge the captain’s decisions.

The accident (which was also known as the Tenerife Airport Disaster), the worst of its kind in history, now forms an essential part of a pilot’s training.

The following video is an FAA animation of the Tenerife accident.

Photo by SafetyCard Own work and Anynobody via Wikipedia

Since the Cessna 172 Skyhawk production began in 1956, over 43,000 units have been built, primarily for flight schools where it is commonly used for Private, Commercial and Instrument Rating flights

Nothing is more liberating than learning to fly.

The Cessna 172 Skyhawk piston is the most popular single-engine aircraft ever built and has achieved a reputation for being the ultimate training aircraft.

With simplistic flight characteristics, great visibility and a sophisticated glass cockpit outfitted with GARMIN G1000 avionics, the Cessna Skyhawk piston boasts a slow landing speed and a lenient stall. These characteristics make it a flight training favorite ideally suited for student pilots and it’s perfectly designed to help you soar.

‘The Cessna 172 has a reputation for being the most used general aviation aircraft in the world,’ says Antonio Moran, Cessna 172 pilot, on Quora.

‘And since its production began in 1956, over 43,000 units have been built, primarily for flight schools where it is commonly used for Private, Commercial and Instrument Rating flights. In fact, I would say that 90% of the pilots with a license have flown at least once a Cessna 172. Why is so popular?

• ‘It is tough, especially the landing gear, which I have been able to verify first-hand that it is impossible to break. I have seen myself slam the aircraft into the runway during a hard landing and the aircraft just takes this punishment extremely well

• ‘Stable in flight, it’s high wing configuration and dihedral make it aerodynamically stable. If you cannot control the aircraft, just remove the pressure of the controls and it will recover by itself

• ‘It is a very simple design: high-wing, fixed tricycle gear and fixed pitch propeller attached to a very reliable engine Lycoming IO-360-L2A of 180 hp. Being so simple not only makes the maintenance easy but as cheap as it can get’

Moran continues;

‘All of these characteristics translate into an excellent flight safety record over the years. Of course, in order to be safe, the aircraft has to go through proper maintenance. If not, it does not matter that the aircraft you will be flying is a Cessna 172, poorly performed maintenance is always a synonym for an unsafe aircraft regardless of model.’

He concludes;

‘But if the fact that the flight schools use this model more than any other does not convince you, I have another argument for you. What if a tell you that the record of the flight endurance record is held by a Cessna 172.

• ‘A brand-new Cessna 172 flown by pilots John Cook and Robert Tim took off on Dec. 4, 1958. These two men remained airborne for 64 days 22 hours 19 minutes and 5 seconds landing on Feb. 4, 1959. If the fact that an aircraft that was properly maintained and refuelled was capable of staying more than two months in the air does not convince you about the reliability and efficiency of the Cessna aircraft, nothing will.’

Photo by Cory W. Watts from Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America via Wikipedia and Howard W. Cannon Aviation Museum

Boeing built its first windowless jet airliners in the 1960s—and they flew as passenger-carrying jets from 1968 to 1992

Why are the passenger windows on aircraft so small?

Would it not reduce the feeling of claustrophobia and thereby make air travel more comfortable if the windows were larger?

The answer to these questions is that any discontinuity in the skin of the aircraft compromises its strength and potentially complicates the airflow. Big windows make weak fuselages – they were contributory to a series of disastrous crashes in the de Havilland Comet airliner and resulted in the US gaining the lead in civil aircraft design. Manufacturers would very much rather give us nothing at all, so think yourself lucky that we have what we have.

So, will commercial aircraft get rid of passenger windows?

‘Boeing built its first windowless jet airliners in the 1960s—and they flew as passenger-carrying jets from 1968 to 1992,’ Ron Wagner, former USAF pilot in the Presidential Wing at Andrews AFB and former airline pilot, recalls on Quora.

‘They were not popular because passengers hated the lack of a view. But now we have 4K flat screens, which could give passengers an even better view than they have through a window.

‘Therefore, I will not be surprised if the B-797 is built without windows. I’ll show you their windowless jets at the end, but meanwhile let’s get to the benefits of omitting the windows now that we’re well past 1960s technology.

BENEFITS TO AIRLINES

‘Windows add weight and they weaken the fuselage. With no windows the jet will be lighter, which will save money. And it will fly higher, which will save fuel and therefore save money. And they won’t require as much maintenance over the life of the airframe, which will save money for decades. Flat screens are almost free these days while jet airliner windows are very expensive.

‘And, the paint schemes could be far more interesting and creative.

‘And, there will be savings on the ground because the jets will remain cooler on hot, sunny days.

BENEFITS TO PASSENGERS

‘Speaking of hot, sunny days, with virtual windows you will never again fly on a cloudy day. Imagine having beautiful vistas all the time generated by the computer, but without the heat.

‘Another benefit will be that if one person wants to look outside, they can do so without blasting out the eyeballs of everyone who wants to sleep. The gentle light from a flat screen cannot compare to the blazing sun.

‘And think of the joys of two-finger zoom on the screens! How many times have you wanted to take a good look at something on the ground, but it’s way too small and moving way too fast even if it wasn’t small. With a virtual window, you could zoom in for close-ups of interesting features. They could easily have a tap feature that would freeze frame so you could zoom in and take a really good look. When you’re satisfied, tap again and it would jump to real time.

‘Of course you would have dozens of view options, such as turning on roads and highways with labels, or not. How often have you wondered, “What city is that?” Well, with a virtual window, you’d just double-tap it and you’d get a little Wiki window with everything you wanted to know.

‘And there’s no reason why the screens wouldn’t have scrolling that would let you tilt down the view to see things you are flying directly over.

‘In fact, there’s no reason to restrict you to just one side of the aircraft. With just a tap, you could select the view from the other side so you’ll never miss the Grand Canyon again because you sat on the wrong side.’

Wagner continues;

SAFETY ENHANCEMENT

‘We are just now a year away from the tragedy of a woman being sucked out of a broken window.

‘While the view on a curved 4K screen on the wall by your seat would definitely suck you in with its beauty and features, it will never suck you out.

‘I think that when the switch to virtual airline windows happens, people would hate to go back to the boring, weird-shaped windows, which you can’t see well through, and which are blocked by clouds something like half the time.

PAUL HARVEY’S “PAGE TWO”

‘And now, let me get back to those first Boeing windowless jet airliners.

‘When I was a pilot in the 89th Military Airlift Wing at Andrews Air Force Base in D.C., we had a fleet of Boeing 707s without windows. They weren’t really 707s—actually they were Boeing 717s—but they were almost the same. The full explanation gets to the root of how the 707 came into existence, which is not the point here.

‘The point here is Boeing built windowless airliners in the 1960s.

‘You’ll note that this looks very similar to the old VC-137 (26000 and 27000), which we used as Air Force One in my day. And we had a few more 137s. But the bulk of our large aircraft, long-range, fleet was the VC-135, pictured above.

‘Note the lack of windows.

‘And yet, these were airliners inside, used to transport the top government officials in Washington all over the world. They didn’t like the 135 very much because there was no such thing back then as a 4K flat screen TV—in other words, ZERO view except for a small window in each emergency exit hatch, required for safety.

THE VIP “FOOD CHAIN”

‘If you were at the top of the Andrews VIP food chain, like Henry Kissinger, you’d get a VC-137. And maybe if you were the chair of a Senate committee going off for what you folks like to call a “junket,” you’d get a VC-137.

‘But when all of your big black vehicles rolled across the Andrews ramp and stopped in front of a VC-135, you knew where you stood in the Washington pecking order—and it wasn’t at the top.

‘Some Presidents, Johnson in particular, would punish people by ordering us to put them in a VC-135 for a long overseas trip. Heh. Heh. Heh. He loved to teach people lessons in humility because he had none of it himself.

Wagner concludes;

‘The point is, that if Boeing builds a windowless jet airliner, it won’t even remotely be a new thing—except for the high-def flat screens.’

Top Image: courtesy of Centre for Process Innovation Limited

Photo by Miles Young / U.S. Air Force

The Columbia Model 107-II Vertol helicopter is the commercial model of the military variant, CH-46 Sea Knight

Columbia Helicopters, the world’s leading heavy-lift helicopter OEM, MRO, and operator, announced today it sold and has delivered a Columbia Model 107-II Vertol to Heliswiss International AG (HSI). The sale makes HSI the official launch customer for the aircraft in Europe.

Due to the uncertain future of the Ka32 and the imposed sanctions by European countries and Canada, HSI sought a long-term comparable and trusted workhorse for medium external load operations. With full OEM support, the standard category Columbia Model 107-II Vertol features a 22,000-lb (9,979-kg) lifting capability, internal and external cargo lift options, and 17-seat passenger capacity.

“The addition of the Columbia Model 107-II Vertol expands our fleet of heavy-lift helicopters, allowing us to better serve our existing clients and open new market segments in alignment with our business strategy,” says Ralf Walser, CEO of the Swiss Helicopter Group, parent company of HIS, in a Columbia Helicopters news release. “Working directly with Columbia, the aircraft’s manufacturer, provides us with the remarkable advantage of unique availability with extremely short downtimes.”

HSI will use the aircraft in its partnerships with governmental and private institutions for forest fire fighting, external load lifts, and rapid disaster response. The company plans to send the aircraft to Chile to fight fires and perform external load operations during the European winter season.

“We are pleased to support Heliswiss and the Swiss Helicopter Group as the European launch customer of our Columbia Model 107-II Vertol,” says Michael Tremlett, President of Columbia Helicopters Inc. “This partnership truly demonstrates Columbia’s dedication as an OEM to support international partners seeking highly capable heavy-lift solutions that can operate year-round.”

The Columbia Model 107-II Vertol helicopter is a tandem rotor, twin engine turbine powered, transport category helicopter originally FAA type certificated by Boeing Vertol in 1962. The type certificate was transferred from Boeing to Columbia Helicopters in 2006.

This aircraft is the commercial model of the military variant, CH-46 Sea Knight (affectionately known as the “Phrog”). The Columbia Model 107-II Vertol has the ability to be configured for multiple uses, including commercial passenger transportation, internal and external cargo transportation, aerial firefighting operations, charter support operations, helicopter logging operations, oil and gas exploration, and infrastructure support.

The Columbia Model 107-II Vertol has a maximum gross weight of 22,000 lbs (9,979 kgs). A large ramp area allows cargo and personnel to be loaded efficiently. With no tail rotor obstruction, fork lifts can pull up to the back of a running helicopter and load cargo as large as 6 x 6 x 20 ft (1.82 x 1.82 x 6.1 m). The maximum range of the Columbia Model 107-II Vertol is 358 nautical miles with auxiliary tanks.

The Columbia Model 107-II Vertol is equipped with two General Electric CT58-140-2 engines with a maximum speed of 148 knots and a cruising speed of 120 knots.

Photo by Columbia Helicopters

‘I went from flying a C-17 (heads up display, fly by wire, glass cockpit) to a 737 Next Gen (glass cockpit) and felt like I went back in time about 3 decades,’ John Tringali, former USAF C-17 pilot and now airline pilot

The Boeing 737 is a twin jet narrow-body airliner built by Boeing. At first, Boeing was making it to be a shorter, cheaper airliner than its 707 and 727. However, the 737 has become a family of nine different models. The number of passengers it can carry ranges from 85 to 215.

The 737 is the only narrow-body airliner that Boeing is making. The only types of 737 that Boeing is still making are the -700, -800 and -900ER.

Moreover, a version of the 737 with new engines and a new design, the 737 MAX, came into service in 2017.

But despite being constantly updated, the Boeing 737 remains a 1960s jet John Tringali, former USAF C-17 pilot and now airline pilot, says.

‘I went from flying a C-17 (heads up display, fly by wire, glass cockpit) to a 737 Next Gen (glass cockpit) and felt like I went back in time about 3 decades. The 737 is a garbage jet, and I flew it for years. It’s like a new 1960s plane with a modern instrument panel slapped on. The overhead panel still has cutouts from where the round-dial mechanical instruments used to be,’ Tringali says on Quora.

‘Airline training is nothing like military training. In the Air Force, we have tons and tons of simulators and ground classes, in the airlines you get a take-home exam and start getting evaluated in the first of only a few sims because “they don’t have time” to train in the simulator. Literally, I was learning landing techniques from 737 friends on Facebook because the sim instructor didn’t do it.

‘On the C-17, and really any modern plane with an electronic overhead panel, the word “auto” means automatic, as in, it will automatically do what it needs to do. For example, in the C-17 running pneumatics off the APU, when you press the engine start button the associated A/C pack shuts itself down automatically to provide more air to the engine. Pretty standard for a jet, usually if you’re trying to run more than just the engine starter off the APU air you’ll get a hot or hung start. The C-17 APU was a beast, so it could run 2 sources simultaneously, like 2 engines starting together, 2 A/C packs together, or 1 of each, so if you had both packs running for cooling and started an engine on the left side, the left pack shut off by itself. Auto.

Tringali continues;

‘The 737 has pack and isolation switches on the pneumatic panel that say “auto” but they really only sort of mean that. I’m sitting in the sim and go to start an engine, but there’s no bleed air. “You have to shut off the pack.” says the instructor “But the switch is in auto.” I say. “Yeah, but you have to manually take it from auto to off.” Okay, still no pressure “You have to open the isolation valve now.” “But it says auto!” “Yes, but you have to manually move it from auto to open.” So I’m like “What the f**k does auto mean in this jet?”

‘Same thing with going from generator to APU power. The C-17, and the 757/767, just auto-connect the busses when the APU gets up to speed. 737? Nope, after it starts you have to manually connect it.

‘Also, the 737 is incredibly loud in the cockpit. Just constant fan and air noise.

‘Everyone who flies it for a while can’t hear out of one ear.

‘It can’t hold more than one altitude worth of wind aloft data, unlike the 757/767, so if you want to look for better tailwinds at altitude you have to refer to your paper flight plan and manually do it. In other words, while cruising, the other jets monitor the fuel weight, density altitude, and 4 different wind levels to calculate the optimal flight level to cruise at. 737? Nope.

‘The controls are super sloppy and lag, which was a huge problem for me coming from a C-17 where the controls are sharp, crisp and responsive. Even the 767 is snappy compared to the 737.’

Tringali concludes;

‘I could go on… but I’ll eventually be flying it so I shouldn’t keep bashing it but… what a POS. Boeing should have buried it and tried to restore the 757 before going down the whole Max fiasco.

‘The jumpseat also sucks.’

Photo by U.S. Air Force, Riyad Filza and Bernal Saborio from Costa Rica via Wikipedia

‘The Boeing 737 is a garbage jet, and I flew it for years. It’s like a new 1960s plane with a modern instrument panel slapped on,’ John Tringali, former USAF C-17 pilot and now an airline pilot.

In 1965, the Boeing name was synonymous with big multiengine jet airplanes, so when the company announced its new commercial twinjet, the 737, it quickly earned the nickname “Baby Boeing.”

In 1967, the smaller, short-range 737 twinjet was the logical airplane to complement the 707 and the 727. On Dec. 28, 1967, Lufthansa took delivery of the first production 737-100 model, in a ceremony at Boeing Field. The following day, United Airlines, the first domestic customer to order the 737, took delivery of the first 737-200.

According to Boeing, by 1987, the 737 was the most-ordered plane in commercial history. In January 1991, 2,887 737s were on order, and Models 737-300, -400, and -500 were in production.

But despite being constantly updated (the 737 MAX is Boeing’s newest family of single-aisle airplanes), according to former USAF C-17 pilot and now airline pilot John Tringali, the Boeing 737 remains a 1960s jet.

‘I went from flying a C-17 (heads up display, fly by wire, glass cockpit) to a 737 Next Gen (glass cockpit) and felt like I went back in time about 3 decades. The 737 is a garbage jet, and I flew it for years. It’s like a new 1960s plane with a modern instrument panel slapped on. The overhead panel still has cutouts from where the round-dial mechanical instruments used to be,’ Tringali says on Quora.

‘Airline training is nothing like military training. In the Air Force, we have tons and tons of simulators and ground classes, in the airlines you get a take-home exam and start getting evaluated in the first of only a few sims because “they don’t have time” to train in the simulator. Literally, I was learning landing techniques from 737 friends on Facebook because the sim instructor didn’t do it.

‘On the C-17, and really any modern plane with an electronic overhead panel, the word “auto” means automatic, as in, it will automatically do what it needs to do. For example, in the C-17 running pneumatics off the APU, when you press the engine start button the associated A/C pack shuts itself down automatically to provide more air to the engine. Pretty standard for a jet, usually if you’re trying to run more than just the engine starter off the APU air you’ll get a hot or hung start. The C-17 APU was a beast, so it could run 2 sources simultaneously, like 2 engines starting together, 2 A/C packs together, or 1 of each, so if you had both packs running for cooling and started an engine on the left side, the left pack shut off by itself. Auto.’

Tringali continues;

‘The 737 has pack and isolation switches on the pneumatic panel that say “auto” but they really only sort of mean that. I’m sitting in the sim and go to start an engine, but there’s no bleed air. “You have to shut off the pack.” says the instructor “But the switch is in auto.” I say. “Yeah, but you have to manually take it from auto to off.” Okay, still no pressure “You have to open the isolation valve now.” “But it says auto!” “Yes, but you have to manually move it from auto to open.” So I’m like “What the f**k does auto mean in this jet?”

‘Same thing with going from generator to APU power. The C-17, and the 757/767, just auto-connect the busses when the APU gets up to speed. 737? Nope, after it starts you have to manually connect it.

‘Also, the 737 is incredibly loud in the cockpit. Just constant fan and air noise.

‘Everyone who flies it for a while can’t hear out of one ear.

‘It can’t hold more than one altitude worth of wind aloft data, unlike the 757/767, so if you want to look for better tailwinds at altitude you have to refer to your paper flight plan and manually do it. In other words, while cruising, the other jets monitor the fuel weight, density altitude, and 4 different wind levels to calculate the optimal flight level to cruise at. 737? Nope.

‘The controls are super sloppy and lag, which was a huge problem for me coming from a C-17 where the controls are sharp, crisp, and responsive. Even the 767 is snappy compared to the 737.’

Tringali concludes;

‘I could go on… but I’ll eventually be flying it so I shouldn’t keep bashing it but… what a POS. Boeing should have buried it and tried to restore the 757 before going down the whole Max fiasco.

‘The jumpseat also sucks.’

Photo by Riyad Filza and Bernal Saborio from Costa Rica via Wikipedia