We've been the 3rd busiest in aircraft movements for a while now though... finally moved into 3rd for passenger (Not hat wiki is a credible source, but they say that Calgary was 3rd in passenger movements in 2008)
Edit: Even Statistics Canada says that Calgary was 3rd in passenger traffic in 2008, ahead of Montreal... so this article isn't quite right, since it's not the first time.
EDIT: Which almost happened to us once when I was doing my glider pilot's license, had some unexpected wind kick up and the last glider down's landing looked almost like this in reverse.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Had a layover in SFO on the way back from OGG. Our next flight was at gate 68 in one of the newer wings of the airport (still had that new construction smell) and man was it nice. Tonnes of plugs available, work spaces, water dispensers and such. I hope the new International terminals at YYC are like this.
I hope the new International terminals at YYC are like this.
Ours will be even better because there will be nobody in there. I reckon just before noon you'll have the whole building to yourself... after Tokyo comes and goes, and the WestJet transborder push... but before KLM arrives. SkyWest to SFO and then UA to Houston is all that'll be around.
I just came back from Maui on flight 3005 on that Thomas Cook 757 blast from the past early 90's Jalopy in 5hrs 11min! Even the flight attendant said she has never run that flight, that quick. Apparently there was a serious tail wind. The ground speed indicator showed over 800 MPH and read as high as 812 mph during the flight (which I am sure was a glitch). I know the plane technically didn't break the sound barrier, but if it was possible, there was another jet, with a completely neutral tail wind a few kms away, going exactly mach 1, would we still have covered distance faster than them?
Here is the log, she was boogying right along, we hit a top speed of 1184 kph.
I just came back from Maui on flight 3005 on that Thomas Cook 757 blast from the past early 90's Jalopy in 5hrs 11min! Even the flight attendant said she has never run that flight, that quick. Apparently there was a serious tail wind. The ground speed indicator showed over 800 MPH and read as high as 812 mph during the flight (which I am sure was a glitch). I know the plane technically didn't break the sound barrier, but if it was possible, there was another jet, with a completely neutral tail wind a few kms away, going exactly mach 1, would we still have covered distance faster than them?
Here is the log, she was boogying right along, we hit a top speed of 1184 kph.
I came back from Maui on Sunday night with Air Canada, we had good tail winds but only hit a ground speed of about 618mph (flight was only 5 hours 39 minutes). I remember seeing weather reports talking about the "Pineapple Express" system heading towards the west coast from Hawaii, good chance that is what your flight caught and got some epic tail winds as a result.
Airspeed is the speed at which the aircraft is moving through the air (also called True Airspeed or TAS), ground speed is the speed of the aircraft over the ground. So up in the cockpit the airspeed indicator would have been at a normal cruise speed for the 757 (according to Wiki it is 530mph), but then you add a tail wind "pushing" the aircraft and you get the ground speeds that you saw indicated.
As to your last question, yes you would have beat that theoretical aircraft going Mach 1 with no tailwind to increase their ground speed.
Check out this website http://www.groundspeedrecords.com/ where pilots upload shots of their ground speed readings and you can see the highest ones submitted to the website.
Edit: Oh and True Airspeed is different from Indicated Airspeed. Indicated is what shows on the gauge in the cockpit, but True is the ACTUAL speed the aircraft is actually traveling through the air mass it is in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_airspeed
AC will use quite low cost indexes on the 767 Hawaii runs, with a big tailwind they'd go as low as .77 (.80 typical, .86 max)
I just edited my post to show the actual flight time, gate to gate was the 6 hour mark, but as you can see our flight time was 5 hours 39 minutes, so if they set to cruise at .77 we were getting quite the push on Sunday too.
I came back from Maui on Sunday night with Air Canada, we had good tail winds but only hit a ground speed of about 618mph (flight was only 5 hours 39 minutes). I remember seeing weather reports talking about the "Pineapple Express" system heading towards the west coast from Hawaii, good chance that is what your flight caught and got some epic tail winds as a result.
Airspeed is the speed at which the aircraft is moving through the air (also called True Airspeed or TAS), ground speed is the speed of the aircraft over the ground. So up in the cockpit the airspeed indicator would have been at a normal cruise speed for the 757 (according to Wiki it is 530mph), but then you add a tail wind "pushing" the aircraft and you get the ground speeds that you saw indicated.
As to your last question, yes you would have beat that theoretical aircraft going Mach 1 with no tailwind to increase their ground speed.
Check out this website http://www.groundspeedrecords.com/ where pilots upload shots of their ground speed readings and you can see the highest ones submitted to the website.
Edit: Oh and True Airspeed is different from Indicated Airspeed. Indicated is what shows on the gauge in the cockpit, but True is the ACTUAL speed the aircraft is actually traveling through the air mass it is in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_airspeed
So I can say I have traveled at a greater relative speed as the speed of sound. So I can check that box off with an asterisk. Ghetto Concorde style baby! Man that Thomas Cook 757 leaves a lot to be desired.
I reckon just before noon you'll have the whole building to yourself... after Tokyo comes and goes, and the WestJet transborder push... but before KLM arrives. SkyWest to SFO and then UA to Houston is all that'll be around.
