Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

On Jun 28, 5:39*am, Wingnut wrote:


And there goes the Cessna strawman again. When, exactly, did the subject
morph from being a commercial pilot to being a private pilot, by the way?

Don't know why all the fuss about "Cessna
strawmen". :-)))))))))))))))))

First of all, the lady in question herself during a televised news
interview said quite plainly that her "commercial experience" was
limited to light aircraft and Cessna was mentioned. Secondly, there
are literally thousands of pilots certificated as commercial pilots in
the United States who have never flown anything more complicated than
a light complex.
I personally know many of these pilots myself. One is a commercial ag
operator who has been dusting crops for 30 years and has never flown
anything heavier than a 182 Cessna. He makes a good living flying a
Pawnee. I know another who runs a banner towing business and flies
Citabrias. MANY I know are CFI's in light aircraft holding commercial
ratings.
You can add to this literally thousands of pilots in the United States
who own light aircraft, many not even complex aircraft, who have
obtained commercials simply for the added education involved.
The lady said she had a commercial and said her experience was limited
to light aircraft. I find absolutely nothing inconsistent with her
comment whatsoever. The inference by ANYONE that her having a
commercial rating indicates she has had experience in heavier aircraft
than those she mentioned is totally flawed in my opinion.
Dudley Henriques

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:13:28 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:

On Jun 28, 5:39Â*am, Wingnut wrote:


And there goes the Cessna strawman again. When, exactly, did the
subject morph from being a commercial pilot to being a private pilot,
by the way?

Don't know why all the fuss about "Cessna strawmen". :-)))))))))))))))))

First of all, the lady in question herself during a televised news
interview said quite plainly that her "commercial experience" was
limited to light aircraft and Cessna was mentioned.

does not say anything like that; it only
says she has a commercial pilot's license, with no further detail. Since
that is the post that we are debating here, as far as I am concerned
everyone bringing up Cessnas is pulling them directly out of their ass.

Our givens are solely that she has a commercial pilot's license and was
able to successfully assume the copilot's role during the landing of a
jumbo jet. Assuming anything beyond that, either negative or positive,
seems unwarranted. This "televised news interview" has not been entered
into evidence, unlike the content of the original post
, so you are assuming facts not in evidence
as part of your efforts, in partnership with Mxsmanic, to denigrate me.
Assuming facts not in evidence is, of course, an illicit debating move.

Secondly, there are literally thousands of pilots certificated as
commercial pilots in the United States who have never flown anything
more complicated than a light complex.

This claim *might* have been more credible had it come from someone who
could spell "certified" correctly. In the meantime, the important matter
here is not the absolute number but the percentage, about which no claim
has yet been made by you.

I personally know many of these pilots myself.

Personal anecdotes are a notoriously poor substitute for actual evidence.
Small, uncontrolled, biased samples are the bane of every statistician.

One is a commercial ag operator who has been dusting crops for 30 years
and has never flown anything heavier than a 182 Cessna.

Aside from the time he flew an FA-18 straight up into the nozzle of an
alien superweapon, of course.

Sorry, fictional characters make particularly poor evidence. :-)

totally flawed in my opinion. Dudley Henriques

Yes, your opinion of me is unfortunately quite clear to all, as is the
fact that you're the type of person to air such opinions, about people
who have done nothing offensive to you to provoke you, in public. You
should grow like an onion with your head in the ground.

Wingnut writes:

does not say anything like that; it only
says she has a commercial pilot's license, with no further detail. Since
that is the post that we are debating here, as far as I am concerned
everyone bringing up Cessnas is pulling them directly out of their ass.

Patti DeLuna herself indicated that she only had about 300 hours of
experience, and has only flown small Cessna aircraft (specifically, a Cessna
210).

Our givens are solely that she has a commercial pilot's license and was
able to successfully assume the copilot's role during the landing of a
jumbo jet.

She did not "assume the copilot's role," an assertion that many first officers
might resent. She merely sat in the copilot's seat and followed the pilot's
instructions.

... as part of your efforts, in partnership with Mxsmanic, to denigrate me.

Nobody is in partnership with me.

Assuming facts not in evidence is, of course, an illicit debating move.

Looking things up, on the other hand, is pretty effective.

This claim *might* have been more credible had it come from someone who
could spell "certified" correctly.

"Certificate" is a real word. It is slightly different in meaning from
"certify." To certify means to attest to something. To certificate means to
issue a certification. However, the FAA and others use certificate mainly
because it contains more syllables and therefore sounds more important.

In the meantime, the important matter
here is not the absolute number but the percentage, about which no claim
has yet been made by you.

The majority of commercial pilots fly little planes. Remember that airline
pilots generally hold airline transport pilot certifications, which are not
the same as commercial licenses.

Personal anecdotes are a notoriously poor substitute for actual evidence.

But research goes a long way, and so does an understanding of how the FAA
certifies pilots.

Yes, your opinion of me is unfortunately quite clear to all, as is the
fact that you're the type of person to air such opinions, about people
who have done nothing offensive to you to provoke you, in public. You
should grow like an onion with your head in the ground.

Why not discuss the topic, instead of other people?

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:27:33 +0200, Mxsmanic spent about fifty paragraphs
to call me a liar over and over again without actually engaging in
productive debate. I therefore didn't bother to quote any of it, except
for his parting shot, which I shall address momentarily.

Suffice it to say that I am growing weary of these unprovoked attacks
from Mxsmanic and Dudley Henriques. I did nothing to provoke these
relentless and unpleasant criticisms; all I did was say this:

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.

Nothing any SANE person would respond to with the hostility and sheer
TENACITY exhibited by Mxsmanic, in particular.

I further observe that Mxsmanic seems to have a large number of
detractors, all sharing the same general opinion: Mxsmanic is a self-
styled know-it-all that actually knows nothing. Presumably, putting
others down while making inflated claims about his own expertise is his
primary means of ego tripping. Sad, if true.

Why not discuss the topic, instead of other people?

A very good question. Why not, Mxsmanic? In the last two weeks you have
spent post after post, dozens of them in all, being subtly hostile and
insulting towards me without apparent provocation. I made a simple
statement that should have been uncontroversial and you attacked it. I
responded in my own defense and you attacked that, and so on. Then your
"legions of admiring fans" showed up to flame you for your silliness, and
even then I remained the primary focus of your attention. You have
replied to a handful of the others' posts but to nearly every single one
of mine. Clearly you have a problem of some sort with me. I doubt it's
the simple fact that I disagree with you about something. Perhaps it's
that I dare to CONTINUE to disagree with you even after you've made it
clear that we disagree, instead of instantly confessing to having been
stupid and swearing to always believe whatever you say in the future?

Actually, what would genuinely be stupid of me would be to give in to
that sort of intellectual bullying and start believing blindly in the
first thing anyone told me to believe "or else".

In fact, your behaviorally-implied "start agreeing with me or I'll flame
you and flame you and flame without end" amounts to an illegitimate,
logically-void argument from force.

The only problem is, it seems we have you outnumbered. You have what, one
ally here? And at least half a dozen enemies, including one new one --
me. Probably one more enemy than you could afford to make. You messed up
big time deciding to pick a fight with me on Fri, 18 Jun 2010 19:51:12
+0200. That timestamp shall someday be indelibly burned in your memory,
when all is said and done; you will rue that day, hour, minute, and
second perhaps for the rest of your life.

Well, unless I decide to have mercy on your poor, misguided, silly little
soul.

Of course, I can't vouch for your half a dozen OTHER enemies, who you
probably ****ed off in much the same way as you got my back up, by
popping up out of nowhere one day to keep not merely disagreeing with
some particular random, innocuous statement they'd made but including
repeated suggestions of stupidity, incompetence, or dishonesty on their
parts, conveyed with a condescending tone, while not actually knowing
what you're talking about.

Perhaps you should ask them for forgiveness. Oh, and stop verbally
attacking me or anybody else.

On Jun 29, 3:27*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Wingnut writes:
does not say anything like that; it only
says she has a commercial pilot's license, with no further detail. Since
that is the post that we are debating here, as far as I am concerned
everyone bringing up Cessnas is pulling them directly out of their ass.

Patti DeLuna herself indicated that she only had about 300 hours of
experience, and has only flown small Cessna aircraft (specifically, a Cessna
210).

Our givens are solely that she has a commercial pilot's license and was
able to successfully assume the copilot's role during the landing of a
jumbo jet.

She did not "assume the copilot's role," an assertion that many first officers
might resent. She merely sat in the copilot's seat and followed the pilot's
instructions.

... as part of your efforts, in partnership with Mxsmanic, to denigrate me.

Nobody is in partnership with me.

Assuming facts not in evidence is, of course, an illicit debating move.

Looking things up, on the other hand, is pretty effective.

This claim *might* have been more credible had it come from someone who
could spell "certified" correctly.

"Certificate" is a real word. It is slightly different in meaning from
"certify." To certify means to attest to something. To certificate means to
issue a certification. However, the FAA and others use certificate mainly
because it contains more syllables and therefore sounds more important.

In the meantime, the important matter
here is not the absolute number but the percentage, about which no claim
has yet been made by you.

The majority of commercial pilots fly little planes. Remember that airline
pilots generally hold airline transport pilot certifications, which are not
the same as commercial licenses.

Personal anecdotes are a notoriously poor substitute for actual evidence.

But research goes a long way, and so does an understanding of how the FAA
certifies pilots.

Yes, your opinion of me is unfortunately quite clear to all, as is the
fact that you're the type of person to air such opinions, about people
who have done nothing offensive to you to provoke you, in public. You
should grow like an onion with your head in the ground.

Why not discuss the topic, instead of other people?

As a matter of minor interest, there's an interesting logic trap in
play here. I think it is safe to say all holders of the airline
transport rating also hold commercial certificates at least in the US.

a writes:

As a matter of minor interest, there's an interesting logic trap in
play here. I think it is safe to say all holders of the airline
transport rating also hold commercial certificates at least in the US.

Since the commercial certificate is subsumed in the ATP, your assertion is
universally true.

The FAA issues several types of certificates, and each type main include
multiple ratings. The pilot certificate types are as follows:

Student
Sport
Recreational
Private
Commercial
Airline Transport Pilot

(There are many other non-pilot certificates, such as mechanic and
dispatcher.)

For each certificate type, you can hold several ratings. Examples of ratings
include:

ASEL - Land airplane single-engine
AMEL - Land airplane multi-engine
INSTA - Instrument airplane
GL - Glider
HEL - Rotorcraft helicopter

You can be a student pilot for gliders, for example, while being a commercial
pilot for multi-engine airplanes.

Some pilot certificates implicitly include the privileges of other
certificates. For example, an ATP includes commercial and private privileges,
and also includes an instrument rating (the only pilot certificate for which a
separate instrument rating is not necessary).

I don't know why the FAA has made it so complicated, but it has.

On Jun 29, 5:59*am, Wingnut wrote:


Suffice it to say that I am growing weary of these unprovoked attacks
from Mxsmanic and Dudley Henriques. I did nothing to provoke these
relentless and unpleasant criticisms.


Dudley Henriques wrote;

I have no opinion of you at all really. You simply come with Usenet.
No problem at all. You have as much right to an opinion here as anyone
here. :-))))))))
Dudley Henriques

Interesting logic trail you have going here. I admit I'm a bit puzzled
to discover exactly where you are finding all these "relentless and
unpleasant criticisms".
If you mean to imply that I am in disagreement with your position or
your argument, you would be correct. I do believe however that I have
gone out of my way to accompany my dissent with a tempered
approach..........sort of as I'm continuing to do now :-))))))))))
Dudley Henriques

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 04:34:36 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
wrote:\

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:13:28 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Secondly, there are literally thousands of pilots certificated as
commercial pilots in the United States who have never flown anything
more complicated than a light complex.

This claim *might* have been more credible had it come from someone who
could spell "certified" correctly.

From dictionary.com:

certificate

Main Entry: cer·tif·i·cate
Pronunciation: \-?ti-f?-?ka-t\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cer·tif·i·cat·ed; cer·tif·i·cat·ing
Date: 1818: to testify to or authorize by a certificate;
especially : certify

It's a good idea to look things up before assuming they're wrong
and especially before claiming they're wrong in public.


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

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:25:12 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:

On Jun 29, 5:59Â*am, Wingnut wrote:


Suffice it to say that I am growing weary of these unprovoked attacks
from Mxsmanic and Dudley Henriques. I did nothing to provoke these
relentless and unpleasant criticisms.


Dudley Henriques wrote;

I have no opinion of you at all really. You simply come with Usenet. No
problem at all. You have as much right to an opinion here as anyone
here. :-))))))))
Dudley Henriques

Interesting logic trail you have going here. I admit I'm a bit puzzled
to discover exactly where you are finding all these "relentless and
unpleasant criticisms".

Mainly in Mxsmanic's posts, but you did at least once suggest that I was
a liar, whether you intended to or not.

On Jun 30, 10:35*pm, Wingnut wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:25:12 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
On Jun 29, 5:59*am, Wingnut wrote:

Suffice it to say that I am growing weary of these unprovoked attacks
from Mxsmanic and Dudley Henriques. I did nothing to provoke these
relentless and unpleasant criticisms.

Dudley Henriques wrote;

I have no opinion of you at all really. You simply come with Usenet. No
problem at all. You have as much right to an opinion here as anyone
here. *:-))))))))
Dudley Henriques

Interesting logic trail you have going here. I admit I'm a bit puzzled
to discover exactly where you are finding all these "relentless and
unpleasant criticisms".

Mainly in Mxsmanic's posts, but you did at least once suggest that I was
a liar, whether you intended to or not.

I'd like to see that quote when you get a moment to find it. In all
the years I've been here on this forum I can't recall ever calling or
inferring that someone was a liar.
Dudley Henriques