If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
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. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
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 * |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
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 * |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
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. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
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. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
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 * |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
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 * |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Leftist Kamakazi pilot Joe Stack, who crashed his airplane intoFederal building in Austin TX, like both Evleths, had been a severe andchronically suffering "Bush Derangement Syndrome" sufferer for years. | O'Donovan, PJ | Europe | 7 | February 27th, 2010 05:30 AM |
free realestate helps... | realestate | USA & Canada | 0 | August 31st, 2006 09:18 AM |
Aussie Pilot Found Dead in Airplane | Fly-by-Night | Air travel | 29 | March 12th, 2005 07:34 PM |
Co-pilot fell ill ,pilot lands solo | scuffler | Asia | 4 | March 12th, 2004 10:14 AM |
HAL Helps TAs Who Lost Houses In Fires! | Ray Goldenberg | Cruises | 0 | January 1st, 2004 03:21 PM |