Ask the pilot

Are pilots trained to fly more than one type of airplane at a time? Can the pilot of a 747 also fly a 757?

Yes and no. Mostly no. There are often enormous differences between airplane types, each requiring its own lengthy syllabus of classroom and simulator training. But with safety and cost benefits in mind, commonality is increasing, and in some cases the ratings to fly different models are the same, as with the Airbus A330/A340 or the Boeing 757/767. But for now this isn't the norm. Management pilots and training personnel are sometimes cross-qualified, but the rank and file are assigned to specific aircraft.

Like everything else in the pilot's world, seniority bidding determines which machine he drives. Thence, transitioning to another model, or upgrading from first officer to captain of the same model, he undergoes the complete training regimen yet again. Even if previously qualified on a particular plane, a pilot will normally sweat out the full program, just as a first-timer would.

757s always seem to reach their destination quickly. Should I look for a specific plane to get me to my destination faster?

Unless you're planning to fly to London or Paris, in which case you can splurge for a ride on Concorde, there's no need to hassle your travel agent. The speed of the airplane itself, while a factor over long distances along straight courses, is not going to make a difference, generally, with on-time status. The assigned routings, high-level winds, and air-traffic situation are the determining factors.

Most jets cruise at roughly the same speed, give or take a few knots, measured at higher altitudes as "mach," which is a percentage of the speed of sound. On a 12-hour run between New York and Tokyo, the difference between, say, .80 mach and .88 mach indeed would be relevant, but long-haul wide-bodies tend to fly a few knots faster with this in mind. Domestically it's not worth worrying about.

The border between subsonic and supersonic is not an aerodynamic triviality. For this reason, despite all the other technological advances we've seen, the cruising speeds of jets have not really changed since their inception. If anything, today's airliners travel slightly more slowly than those of 30 years ago.

How can I find out the age of the plane I'm traveling on? And will I then be able to tell how far from retirement the plane is?

Many jets have a small plaque, about the size of a greeting card, mounted near the most forward boarding door, listing its date of manufacture. It can be hard to find, but the next time you're stuck in the bottleneck at the end of the jetway, see if you can spot it. Normally it's bolted to the frame itself, inside the sill where it will be covered once the door is closed. There really is no way to tell how close a plane is to retirement. Planes are retired for various reasons, and age, strictly speaking, isn't always one of them.

Wasn't there a law mandating that jets crossing the ocean had to have at least three engines? How did the 767 and 777 get around this?

Back in the 1980s something called ETOPS or Extended (range) Twin-Engine Operations came about, by which aircraft with fewer than three power plants were allowed to fly transoceanic routes if certain conditions were met. These conditions include demonstrated engine reliability and maximum allowable distances to diversion airports. (A full rundown of the rules would be tedious; these are the gist.)

Currently there are ETOPS procedures across both the Atlantic and Pacific, applicable to a wide range of aircraft. Even the 737 now makes Hawaii-to-California flights (for Aloha Airlines). Each company must apply for the right to conduct such operations, and has to meet the various requirements.

While the four-engine 747 was once the premier airliner to Europe, the much smaller 767 is now the trans-Atlantic aircraft of choice (well, the airlines' choice at least). In the Pacific, the 777 is gaining ground on a market still dominated by the 747. I have no qualms about flying across the ocean in a twin-engine airliner. Trying to argue two vs. four in the name of safety is a real hairsplitter.

In perhaps the ultimate demonstration of ETOPS' ability, Continental Airlines started flying its 777s nonstop between Newark, N.J., and Hong Kong. This routing, over Canada, the north pole and Siberia, actually covers less ocean than many shorter intercontinental flights, but ETOPS is predicated on distance from available airports, not necessarily exposure to the open sea.

Most passenger aircraft have their wings affixed to the bottom of the fuselage, where they offer the greatest possible hindrance to my view of the world passing beneath. On the other hand, whenever I see a big military cargo plane on the news, the wings join the fuselage at the top. Why the difference, and why not the other way around?

For one thing there are many passenger airplanes, both new and old, with wings affixed to the top -- the ATR, Dash-8, Dornier 328, and the Avro RJ (BAe 146) among them. I could list a dozen. But they tend to be smaller ones.

The placement of the wings dictates placement of things like cargo compartments and assorted hardware. For any larger passenger plane, it's not practical to have this stuff -- cargo especially -- located anywhere other than below the passengers. So the wings go on the bottom, the floor passing over them and allowing lower-deck cargo space both forward and aft. (With those aircraft listed above, cargo carriage is minimal.)

On a military transport there is usually only one deck for troops and material. With top-mounted wings, the floor is set lower and is not encumbered with wing attachment structures and so forth, allowing more practical and efficient carriage of vehicles, oversize freight, etc., often loaded directly through a nose or tail-mounted ramp.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Do you have questions for Salon's aviation expert? Send them to AskThePilot and look for answers in a future column.

Story finder (3 ways to search Salon)

Search terms:

Salon the Web

Salon Directory (browse by topic)