1996-02-24

enroute SFO to JFK on United, Saturday, 1996-02-24 12:20 PST (Z-8)

I'm in the back of a United 767. Sometimes jumpseating works really well, and this is one of those times. I got on the 06:00 United flight out of Eugene to SFO, and then walked over and without hassle got on the 08:50 flight to JFK. I'll hit the hotel at JFK about 19:00 local, relax for a bit (and send this) and then pop in bed for a 06:30 morning show to operate to LAX/

I shouldn't have any trouble sleeping since last night was a short night. We went to bed with it snowing on snow already on the ground. We took the precaution of moving Jean's car to the head of the driveway, and then we gave ourselves an extra half hour to get to the aiport. It worked out well even though it was a very slow trip. The last part was really slippery. The snow had changed to rain Eugene and then the weather cleared and it froze. It was bad enough that Jean decided to go to the airport restaurant and sit and wait for it to get light and a little warmer to make the driving safer on her way home.

A little more detail on Tower's accident that totalled the airplane when it went off the runway at JFK in the snow. Tower made money on the deal. It seems that the airplane was over-insured. Plus, Tower bought the airplane back from the insurance company for only $750,000. Apparently the insurance company didn't realize that it was worth several million dollars for the parts. Also, the accident couldn't have happened at a better time in that the airplane was due to go in for a “D” check. That's essentially a major overhaul, so Tower escaped that cost as well.

Everything is almost back to normal at our house. I can't remember if I've mentioned that we had some trees cut that were either threatening the house or closing out much desired light. Anyway, when one of the trees fell, a limb punched into the ground and severed the water line from the spring. When I went to work last time, we had only a temporary line coming down the creek. Then the flood came to make things worse. The water got up to about 20 inches in the lower level of the house. That submerged the water pump and thus again disabled water system.

Jean wisely took the precaution of moving a lot of things from the main floor (2nd level) up to the 3rd level and put larger things (couches, etc.) up on blocks on the main level. She also took the carpets up. Sandlins came up and did the heavy work. All that while I was basking in the sun in South America. <g>

But now the place is back to normal, except that the south side of our parking lot area is really torn up. We had to have a backhoe come in to the the water line leak. While they were looking for that, they broke our underground phone line. <sigh> As soon as things dry out, they'll bring the backhoe back to fill in all the trenches.

In the last message I mentioned that two things of interest had happened on the last trip, but related only one. The second wasn't as unique as the first, but it still bears telling for those who may be interested in the technical side of flying. It's a classic example of what happens when things get involed and one pilot (the captain) has a different idea (and different priorities) of how to handle the situation than the other pilot (me). The involvement was that, coming into LAX, approach control got really foulded up in sequencing aircraft for arrival. We wound up getting numerous vecotors, speed changes, and descent delays. Finally, we get clearance to join the localizer (the extended centerline of the runway) and proceed with the approach. However, they also gave us some altitude crossing restrictions and a 180 knot speed restriction—this when we were at (at their previous request) 280 knots and very high (they hadn't let us down). A 747 not in landing configuration cannot descend and slow down at the same time. Unfortunately the captain felt slowing down was the priority item. I felt getting down was the priority item.

I was the flying pilot. My reasoning was that we could drop the altitude and then slow, if necessary, to less than 180 knots to open up the distance between us and the preceding airplane. He felt the best way was to slow down and then tell ATC what we would be unable to make the altitude restriction. I was for telling ATC that the speed restriction would be what we couldn't make. Either way, of course, would eventually work. However, when I kept the speed up, the captain kept telling me to flatten out the descent to at least kill some of the speed. I did, of course, to please him, but then we wound up facing not being able to make either the altitude or speed restrictions.

At this point there was only one way out other than confessing to ATC that we couldn't get our act together, and that was dropping the gear, which we did. The drag from the landing gear is enough to allow descent and slowing simultaneously to a degree. The problem was that we were still 35 miles from the airport. The gear is normally lowered at about 5 miles from touchdown. Anyway, we got down and slowed down, but we were then on the glidepath with gear down and 10 degrees of flaps and still 30 miles from touchdown. It takes a lot of power (hence a lot of fuel) to maintain a 747 on a 3° glideslope in landing configuration. So, we flew all that idstance with the gear down.

We weren't yet completely configured for landing. Normal landing flaps is 25°. But for a fuel usage comparison, with gear and landing flaps down and tracking a 3° glideslope, the fuel flow for a 747-200 will typically be about 5,000 lbs/hour per engine. That's approximately the same fuel flow that you would see enroute at 35,000 feet.

I thought of picking the gear and flaps up again, but when you do that, passengers notice and get worried, so I elected to just keep on trucking. Embarassing, though. It was absolutely the worst approach I've ever flown in a 747. Fortunately the captain chose to blame it all on ATC...at least that's what he said. It's true they put us in a difficult situation, but we're supposed to be able to handle things like that better than we did.

I'm once again getting calls about the weight & balance software I wrote. This time the calls are coming from a Dutchman that works for Avia Presto, a ground handling company at Schipol, Amsterdam's primary airport. It's really strange to be looking at that stuff again...and a little painful.

By the way, I like Windows 95. I'm still stumbling like mad while using it, but it's clearly a major improvement over Windows 3.1. However, learning it has been and will continue to be a major time consumer. If any of you are contempling switch to Windows 95, be aware that if you get it on diskettes, you do not get everything you get if you get it on CD-ROM. Specifically, drivers for hardware components manfactured by small companies may be missing. That little fact cost me a couple of days. I now have the “supplemental diskettes” coming from Microsoft that will give me all (I think) that is on the CD-ROM (or at least all the drivers).

Recommendation: read the February 12 issue of The National Review. It has 15 pages on why we need to legalize currently illicit durgs. In other words, end the drug war. Liberals have, of course, been calling for this for some time. The significance of The National Reiew doing it is that that magazine and its founder and editor, William F. Buckley, have impeccable credentials as conservatives. So now we have respected people on both ends of the political spectrum calling for reform. At the very least, the articles in the 15 pages will stimulate much needed debate rather than blindly accepting what the government currently says. I think that there is a real possibility that, years from now, historians might mark the publishing of this issue of The National Review as the beginning of the end of drug prohibition. Okay, off my soap box, and just in time; we're starting the descent into JFK.

Terry