Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:26:18 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Hatunen writes:

Nor can it realistically
simulate the feeling of aiming the plane at a real runway and
trying your best to grease the wheels on, but instead coming in a
bit high and trying to force the plne down to the runway without
bouncing too much.

Actually it does that rather well.

Your computer chair bounces?
As us8ual you deleted an important part of my post....

"In some fairness, it should be said that some computer
simulators perform pretty well, but it also has to be said that a
simulation on a PC can never be very realistic. It is far
different sitting in a real cockpit with a real yoke and real
pedals operating real ailerons, elevators and rudders."

.... which makes it clear I am talking about PC simulators.

A PC can never simulate that feeling in the
pit of your stomache when teh plane hits a downdraft and loses
2000 feet just like that.

Like many private pilots, you think of flight in terms of physical sensations.
This is only one of many possible interpretations, however.

You've never flown a plane. I have. The physical sensations can
be important when they occur, as they can distract from clear
thinking. A stall simulated on a PC can not ever accurately
convey the, um, thrill, of a full stall (especially your first
full stall as a student pilot) as you keep pulling back on the
yoke/joystick pointing the noise higher and higher as the stall
warning screams and then, WHAM!, the nose of the plane is pointed
downward, seemingly straight down at the ground, gaining speed
rapidly. The first time I did tht for my isntructor it scared the
crap out of me. (The plane itself is important here; our old
Piper J-3 would snap a stall break like you wouldn't believe,
real Six Flags sort of thing, while the Cessnas are a bit more
forgiving, and some light planes are designed to not break in a
stall at all but to simply lsoe altitude.)


A PC can not give you the feel of a plane as it is slowed to
stall speen with the stall warning blaring and the plane
shuddering a little. Andalthough they no longer teach it, a PC
cannot simulate the quiet but scary feeling f being in a spin and
the slight panic as you try to bring it out of that spin.

Since they no longer teach it, doesn't that mean that there are no longer any
Real Pilots? How can you know anything about a spin without spinning in a
real aircraft?

And the PC can not simulate the visual context of a real plane
where the instruments are spread out; you'd have to keep your
nose pretty close to the monitor to simulate this.

Actually, the PC can do this, with the right add-ons.

As to Mixie's apparent idea that somehow his PC is a good
emulation of a big-time simulator, where the cockpit layout is
very close to the appearance of the craft's real cockpit and
where the hydraulics on the simulator can create most of the
bumps and jerks of real flight, that is downright ludicrous.

I guess you haven't been flying or simming much recently. The cockpit layout
of the sim is realistic enough that you may not recognize it as a sim at first
glance. It's not difficult to display photo-realistic visuals, after all.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:26:18 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Hatunen writes:


Andalthough they no longer teach it, a PC
cannot simulate the quiet but scary feeling f being in a spin and
the slight panic as you try to bring it out of that spin.

Since they no longer teach it, doesn't that mean that there are no longer any
Real Pilots? How can you know anything about a spin without spinning in a
real aircraft?

Well, my instructor, who insisted on teaching spins to me
although no longer required for certification said there weren't
any more real pilots.

I guess you don't have to know how to recover from a spin if you
don't spin.

And the PC can not simulate the visual context of a real plane
where the instruments are spread out; you'd have to keep your
nose pretty close to the monitor to simulate this.

Actually, the PC can do this, with the right add-ons.

Like an add-on dual monitor? I fail to see how a PC can
realistically give the sensation of an instrument panel over two
feet across.

As to Mixie's apparent idea that somehow his PC is a good
emulation of a big-time simulator, where the cockpit layout is
very close to the appearance of the craft's real cockpit and
where the hydraulics on the simulator can create most of the
bumps and jerks of real flight, that is downright ludicrous.

I guess you haven't been flying or simming much recently. The cockpit layout
of the sim is realistic enough that you may not recognize it as a sim at first
glance. It's not difficult to display photo-realistic visuals, after all.

Unless your computer chair can bounce up and down and lean left
and right, it's not the same.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Hatunen writes:

But you're still required to actually fly a plane to get
certified.

That is a regulatory rather than a practical restriction. And you only need a
very small number of hours of flight in a real aircraft.

In the future, I suspect that pilots will be trained without any time in a
real aircraft, mainly to save money.

Delusional.

Tell us: does the simulator simulate a stall?

Yes.

Sure it does, including the feeling of falling when the stall breaks and
the increased G load as you pull out.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Hatunen writes:

Nor can it realistically
simulate the feeling of aiming the plane at a real runway and
trying your best to grease the wheels on, but instead coming in a
bit high and trying to force the plne down to the runway without
bouncing too much.

Actually it does that rather well.

Delusional.

The view looks like a flat screen and there is no peripherial view.

A PC can never simulate that feeling in the
pit of your stomache when teh plane hits a downdraft and loses
2000 feet just like that.

Like many private pilots, you think of flight in terms of physical sensations.

The physical sensations of a downdraft are real in real airplanes and you
have to learn to deal with them to fly real airplanes.

A PC can not give you the feel of a plane as it is slowed to
stall speen with the stall warning blaring and the plane
shuddering a little. Andalthough they no longer teach it, a PC
cannot simulate the quiet but scary feeling f being in a spin and
the slight panic as you try to bring it out of that spin.

Since they no longer teach it, doesn't that mean that there are no longer any
Real Pilots? How can you know anything about a spin without spinning in a
real aircraft?

Wrong.

Yes spins are still taught, they are just not a requirement for private.

And the PC can not simulate the visual context of a real plane
where the instruments are spread out; you'd have to keep your
nose pretty close to the monitor to simulate this.

Actually, the PC can do this, with the right add-ons.

Sure if you have a 360 degree wrap around display.

Do you?

As to Mixie's apparent idea that somehow his PC is a good
emulation of a big-time simulator, where the cockpit layout is
very close to the appearance of the craft's real cockpit and
where the hydraulics on the simulator can create most of the
bumps and jerks of real flight, that is downright ludicrous.

I guess you haven't been flying or simming much recently. The cockpit layout
of the sim is realistic enough that you may not recognize it as a sim at first
glance. It's not difficult to display photo-realistic visuals, after all.

Since it is all on a small (compared to even a C150 panel) 2 dimensional flat
screen, only someone delusional could not immediately tell it is a display.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Hatunen writes:

Your computer chair bounces?

No, but the view out the window and the instruments tell me all that I need to
know. Vision is the most important sense in flying by far.

... which makes it clear I am talking about PC simulators.

PC simulators do a good job, too.

You've never flown a plane. I have.

Thank you for proving my point.

The physical sensations can be important when they occur, as they can
distract from clear thinking.

Yes, but much of their effect is a function of personality as well.

A stall simulated on a PC can not ever accurately
convey the, um, thrill, of a full stall (especially your first
full stall as a student pilot) as you keep pulling back on the
yoke/joystick pointing the noise higher and higher as the stall
warning screams and then, WHAM!, the nose of the plane is pointed
downward, seemingly straight down at the ground, gaining speed
rapidly.

Yes, I know. But I'm not a thrillseeker, and I don't need thrills to learn how
to fly.

The first time I did tht for my isntructor it scared the
crap out of me.

Did you know what to expect?

Hatunen writes:

Well, my instructor, who insisted on teaching spins to me
although no longer required for certification said there weren't
any more real pilots.

It's a judgment call. Spin practice is no longer required because more pilots
were dying from spins during training than were dying from spins during flight
thereafter. The cure was worse than the disease. So the emphasis was shifted
to avoiding spins, rather than recovering from them, at least for PPLs.

I guess you don't have to know how to recover from a spin if you
don't spin.

Exactly. It's safer to practice avoiding spins, but to only learn the theory
of spin recovery.

Like an add-on dual monitor?

No. Look up TrackIR.

I fail to see how a PC can
realistically give the sensation of an instrument panel over two
feet across.

See above.

Unless your computer chair can bounce up and down and lean left
and right, it's not the same.

As I've said, a lot of private pilots seem to give physical sensations
priority over everything else. But there's a lot more to flying than a
roller-coaster ride. I don't care much for the physical sensations myself,
although takeoff and landing are kind of pleasant if they are smooth.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Hatunen writes:

Your computer chair bounces?

No, but the view out the window and the instruments tell me all that I need to
know. Vision is the most important sense in flying by far.

Delusional babble.

It is important to learn how to handle ALL the sensory inputs, especially
the ones that tend to cause you to redo your breakfast.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Hatunen writes:

Well, my instructor, who insisted on teaching spins to me
although no longer required for certification said there weren't
any more real pilots.

It's a judgment call. Spin practice is no longer required

Wrong.

Spins are not required for private and below.

snip delusional babble about small, flat screens looking just like a real
airplane panel


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:45:01 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Wingnut writes:

So, you're sayign that flight experience is irrelevant to flying an
aircraft?

That depends on the experience, and the aircraft. Flight experience in a
Cessna 152

Ah, the Cessna 152 strawman again. I was wondering when that would show
up. First sentence of non-quoted text as it just so happens -- which
means one of my co-workers owes me ten bucks. :-)

Just as experience in driving a Yugo doesn't necessarily help in
driving a Formula 1 car.

Experience driving versus never having sat behind a wheel should make
some difference. It's plain old common sense!

A person with experience in a Cessna 152 still has none in a 747, and so
he will not necessarily be any more useful in a 747 cockpit than a
non-pilot would.

There will be some commonalities. Zero experience in a plane will make
you worse than having had some experience. I don't claim you'd be
proficient; just that you wouldn't actually be *less* capable than
someone who knew *nothing*. Again, common sense.

Pilots of small private aircraft who believe that they could just slip
into a 747 cockpit and fly it are just as naive as non-pilots who
believe the same thing.

First of all, we weren't talking "pilots of small private aircraft", at
least not until you came along and introduced that particular strawman.

Second, they may not be able to do a good job, but the total non-pilot
will surely do a worse job.

Except in your earlier, specific scenario of being talked through a
procedure from the ground, where anyone with basic comprehension skills
will probably do about as well. (Someone with piloting experience might
more quickly be able to find and recognize particular controls or
instrument readouts though, and will be able to understand a more compact
jargon, so he may be a bit faster though other than that only as good as
the quality of the ground instructions.)

I don't think anyone here has claimed that. Though the less someone
knows about operating an aircraft, the poorer their odds.

Yes. I've heard many people claim this, however, and it only shows that
they are uninformed.

Someone who says that "the less experience a person has at a skilled
task, the poorer their odds of completing it successfully" is
"uninformed"? In what universe? In the one where I live there is this
thing called a "learning curve". It climbs steeply at first, then bends
over, but it's monotonic increasing, and it indicates task performance as
a function of experience. Performance improves with experience, slowing
down and eventually plateauing. For some things (e.g. Tic-Tac-Toe) it
plateaus fast and low; for others (e.g. chess) it plateaus much more
slowly and higher, because the thing being learned is more complicated.
But it does not actually dip down at any point.

Since this basic fact (learning curves are monotonic increasing) is
disputed by you, I'm forced to conclude that you're insane and thus not
really worth debating with any further.

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 05:01:37 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:

On Jun 20, 4:30Â*am, Wingnut wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:11:10 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
All this is just a fancy way of saying that prior experience in a
Cessna 150 might not matter in a 767

Who said anything about a Cessna? The original post said she had
experience as a *commercial* pilot. That tends to mean something a bit
bigger than just a personal aircraft.

I believe the lady herself said during a TV interview that her
experience was restricted to light aircraft. The type "Cessna" was
mentioned.

This statement, if true, remains irrelevant. Learning curves are
monotonic increasing. She cannot be actually worse than someone with zero
piloting experience and is probably at least slightly better.

Furthermore, the original post to this thread did not state anything of
the sort, only that she had a commercial pilot's license, which as
another person pointed out normally includes non-zero experience with
larger craft.