Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

On Jun 20, 4:30*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.

DH

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

Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
would have become quite relevant indeed.

Not necessarily. In a situation like that, what would be most important would
be her ability to follow instructions precisely, and the availability of a
qualified pilot to guide her over the radio. These two things would override
any piloting experience she might have.

Nope.

In a situation like that, what would be most important would be her ability
to stay calm, not panic and fly the airplane.

Look around at the average non-pilots in an airliner when a sudden noise
like the gear coming up happens and you will see lots of faces with
momentary fear and it gets worse with even the mildest of turbulence.

The reality is the average non-pilot is afraid of flying to some extent or
other and becomes frightened at just about every bump or sudden change in
the background noise.

My opinion is all the sensory inputs (of which those only "flying" sims
have no clue) along with the the huge responsibility of flying an aircraft
full of other people would likely overwhelm the average non-pilot.

And since all pilots are trained "to follow instructions precisely", that
becomes two reasons that a random pilot has better chances of success than
a random non-pilot.


--
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 will not necessarily be of any use in flying a 747 or a SR-71.

The lady in question has a commercial license, which implies more
experience than noodling around in a 152. At a minimum the lady
would know pulling back on the yoke raises the nose and and
pushing forward makes for nose down. She would also know that
turning the yoke will not make the plane turn unless the pedals
are also used. And, of course, she will know most of the lingo
and will know where to look when told to watch the air speed or
the artificial horizon. She will presumably know the difference
between mag north and true north and will have a pretty good idea
of which direction runway 120 points. She would know the purpose
of the flaps, the VOR, and so on. She will know how to read an
air chart.

The
basic principles are the same, but nothing more. Just as experience in driving
a Yugo doesn't necessarily help in driving a Formula 1 car.

It will help in driving the Formula 1 from the garage to the
street.

The notion that experience at something improves one's ability at that
something is a "myth"? Since when?

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.

Nonsense. While teh cockpit of a 747 is pretty complex, it still
contains the basic instruments of a twin-engine Beech.

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.

I don't recall anyone here saying they could.

To fly an airliner, you need experience and/or training in flying
airliners, not Piper Cubs.

Well, duh. That's not the question at hand.

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.

You've heard many people claim this? Who? And especially, who
here in this thread? As usual you're making up straw men.

A person with no flying experience who is compelled to take the controls of a
small aircraft without any automation runs a high risk of crashing. In a
large transport-category aircraft with heavy automation, though, he has a much
better chance of being able to land safely, if someone can give him
instructions over the radio. (Without instructions, his chances are just as
poor as they would be in the small aircraft.)

But this is a case where it would be especially helpful if the
person taking over the controls had, say, a commercial license,
for the reasons I cited above.

Not the scenario here. This person was a commercial pilot, not just
someone who had operated their own personal plane.

The same principle still applies to a certain extent, unless the commercial
pilot experience was in the same type of aircraft. If the FA had a CPL but had
not flown for 20 years, she may never have flown an airliner.

See the reasons I cited above. Among other things, an average
passenger sitting in the left or right seat would probably go
into shock at the mere sight of an airline instrument panel. Some
one with a commercial license, would immediately look for the
instruments familiar to him or her.

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

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:46:12 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Wingnut writes:

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.

You can fly commercially in a Cessna. And unless you also have a job as a
commercial pilot in addition to the CPL, you might not ever fly anything much
larger than that.

Yep. Might not. Or might have.

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

On Jun 20, 7:30*pm, Hatunen wrote:

See the reasons I cited above. Among other things, an average
passenger sitting in the left or right seat would probably go
into shock at the mere sight of an airline instrument panel. Some
one with a commercial license, would immediately look for the
instruments familiar to him or her.

Not sure if you realize MX is a MSFS simmer, has never flown a real
plane, not a CGI, and no real world experience inside a real plane.
He just misrepresents himself as a pilot.

He doesn't understand the real world as you describe above. Your last
sentence is the key. Somebody with piloting experience would know
what the altimeter would look like in the myriad of instruments
presented in front of him or a DG for directional awareness. A non
pilot may not be so quick to identify it. Put in glass cockpit in the
mix, and you would have me lost trying to interpret the information
being presented. I simply can't imagine a non pilot trying to figure
it out especially with altitude and such.

Hatunen wrote:
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 will not necessarily be of any use in flying a 747 or a
SR-71.

The lady in question has a commercial license, which implies more
experience than noodling around in a 152.

Commercial airplane rating requires at least 10 hours training in retracts,
controllable pitch prop, or be turbine powered. So it can't be completed
using just a Cessna 150/152. You need some training in something like a
Cessna 172RG or R182, at a minimum.

In article ,
says...

Hatunen wrote:
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 will not necessarily be of any use in flying a 747 or a
SR-71.

The lady in question has a commercial license, which implies more
experience than noodling around in a 152.

Commercial airplane rating requires at least 10 hours training in retracts,
controllable pitch prop, or be turbine powered. So it can't be completed
using just a Cessna 150/152. You need some training in something like a
Cessna 172RG or R182, at a minimum.

Maybe in your country - not in New Zealand, Australia, nor (AFAIK) the
UK. One only need 200 hours, plus a small amount of time under the hood
(10hrs or 5?). The complex requirements are met on paper only (ie you
do a very simple exam).

--
Duncan.

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

On Jun 20, 4:30*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.

Cessna makes or made (I don't recall the current structure of the
personal aircraft inudstry) some heavier aircraft than the 150s I
used to fly. Including some Jets (the Citation line).

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

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:26:24 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jun 20, 7:30*pm, Hatunen wrote:

See the reasons I cited above. Among other things, an average
passenger sitting in the left or right seat would probably go
into shock at the mere sight of an airline instrument panel. Some
one with a commercial license, would immediately look for the
instruments familiar to him or her.

Not sure if you realize MX is a MSFS simmer, has never flown a real
plane, not a CGI, and no real world experience inside a real plane.
He just misrepresents himself as a pilot.

I'm quite familiar with Mixie. From time to time I get fed up and
killfile him, but it's usually set to expred after thirty days of
no kills, and he seems to have gone away for that long this time.

He doesn't understand the real world as you describe above. Your last
sentence is the key. Somebody with piloting experience would know
what the altimeter would look like in the myriad of instruments
presented in front of him or a DG for directional awareness. A non
pilot may not be so quick to identify it. Put in glass cockpit in the
mix, and you would have me lost trying to interpret the information
being presented. I simply can't imagine a non pilot trying to figure
it out especially with altitude and such.

While a heavy jet is a big sucker with a very complex panel
(although lighter aircraft are now sporting some pretty
compicated-looking electronci panels now) the principals are
basic for any one who has flown a plane for even a short time:
keep it level except coordinated turns. To land glide down to
near stall speed, flare at the runway apron and make it stall
just as the wheels tough the runway.

Of course, that last part takes some real practice (I failed my
first flight test on the emergency landing). I don't know if
modern airliners can, as they say, land themselves, or at least
if they all can. I m pretty sure that if the plane is set up to
land itself it has to be at a runway set up for it.

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

Hatunen writes:

The lady in question has a commercial license, which implies more
experience than noodling around in a 152.

You can fly any sort of aircraft as a commercial pilot, and in particular, a
CPL does not necessarily imply any experience at all in large jet transport
aircraft. If you want to barnstorm across the country in a 152, for example,
you need a CPL.

At a minimum the lady would know pulling back on the yoke raises
the nose and and pushing forward makes for nose down. She would also
know that turning the yoke will not make the plane turn unless the pedals
are also used.

Presumably, but since she will absolutely not be touching these flight
controls, this knowledge is useless.

And, of course, she will know most of the lingo
and will know where to look when told to watch the air speed or
the artificial horizon.

There isn't a lot of lingo to know, but she might find it easier to locate the
attitude indicator on the PFD without it being described to her, and she might
find the airspeed without it being explained, although that depends largely on
her ingenuity--small aircraft twenty years ago did not have PFDs.

She will presumably know the difference
between mag north and true north and will have a pretty good idea
of which direction runway 120 points. She would know the purpose
of the flaps, the VOR, and so on. She will know how to read an
air chart.

All she is going to do is turn a few knobs or move a few levers, which anyone
can do, with or without a pilot's license.

Nonsense. While teh cockpit of a 747 is pretty complex, it still
contains the basic instruments of a twin-engine Beech.

Actually, apart from the compass, standby AI, and altimeter, there's almost
nothing in common. The cockpit does have a yoke, rudder pedals, and a couple
of throttles, but she needs to stay away from those.

I don't recall anyone here saying they could.

This isn't the only place where I discuss aviation. Anyway, the same pilots
who believe that a non-pilot would instantly crash any aircraft also tend to
believe that they can fly anything, even if they've never been in any aircraft
with more than two seats and a propeller.

Well, duh. That's not the question at hand.

Well, yes, it is. You can only stretch knowledge of one aircraft so far, then
you need to explicitly study other aircraft. Knowing how to drive a Ford
Escort does not teach you how to drive a tractor-trailer rig, even if they are
both road vehicles.

You've heard many people claim this? Who? And especially, who
here in this thread? As usual you're making up straw men.

As I've said, I discuss aviation in all sorts of venues, not just on USENET.

But this is a case where it would be especially helpful if the
person taking over the controls had, say, a commercial license,
for the reasons I cited above.

I've explained why those reasons would be mostly inapplicable.

Among other things, an average passenger sitting in the left or right
seat would probably go into shock at the mere sight of an airline
instrument panel.

Not so. In real-world emergency situations, people tend to be a lot calmer
than they are in Hollywood movies or in imagination. There are some who panic,
but many who don't. Natural selection doesn't favor people who panic easily.

Some one with a commercial license, would immediately look for the
instruments familiar to him or her.

And would become just as alarmed as the non-pilot upon realizing that
virtually nothing looks familiar.