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 |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 01:16:41 +0200, 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 because more pilots were dying from spins during training than were dying from spins during flight thereafter. My goodness. That's a very specific claim. Do you have any support for it? 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. Really? How many private pilots do you know well enough to make that claim? But there's a lot more to flying than a roller-coaster ride. Are you supposin' that I said otherwise? I don't care much for the physical sensations myself, although takeoff and landing are kind of pleasant if they are smooth. If. I'm not particulary fond of hitting tubulence when I'm in an airliner, but physical sensations are hard to avoid if you fly much. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Jun 23, 11:16*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
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. Bull****. Plain and simple. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ60fitlU70 Best you stay in your cupboard in Paris and leave the rest of us to get out there and actually do things |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... 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. What physical sensations are you referring to? You don't fly and you know nothing about flying. You just play a computer game in your cupboard in Paris. -- JohnT |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
Wingnut writes:
Experience driving versus never having sat behind a wheel should make some difference. It's plain old common sense! It makes a difference, but not necessarily a useful difference. There will be some commonalities. Very little in common, and much of it too dangerous to use. For example, the 747 has flight controls, and so does the Cessna--but a Cessna pilot who actually attempts to fly the 747 by hand will obtain even worse results than he would if he simply stayed with the automation. I don't claim you'd be proficient; just that you wouldn't actually be *less* capable than someone who knew *nothing*. You would not be less capable, but you would not necessarily be more capable in any practical sense. First of all, we weren't talking "pilots of small private aircraft", at least not until you came along and introduced that particular strawman. Virtually every pilot arguing about it here is a low-time private pilot. I can spot them from a mile away. They're in the "danger zone" of low-time pilots, where most accidents occur. Enough experience to feel confident, but not enough experience to feel humble. Second, they may not be able to do a good job, but the total non-pilot will surely do a worse job. The results might be the same. The results for the pilot might actually be worse if his experience encourages him to take risks that the non-pilot would not (such as attempting to fly the aircraft by hand). 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. The only viable scenario is one in which the pilot/non-pilot is given instructions by a qualified third party. It is unlikely that a non-pilot or a pilot without experience in type would know enough to land entirely on his own, without instructions. 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. He might find the magnetic compass faster, and he'd recognize the yoke and rudder pedals and throttles. Beyond that, nothing is really certain. The real risk is that he might think he knows more than he does, which means he might do risky things that the non-pilot would not. 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. The accident rate for non-pilots is zero, because they do not fly. The accident rate for pilots with thousands of hours of experience is very low, becaue they've been flying for a very long time. The accident rate for pilots with only a limited number of hours is very high, because they gain confidence before they gain competence. A low-time private Cessna pilot is thus in a dangerous zone (and most pilots of small Cessnas are also low-time pilots), and he has experience that is irrelevant in many ways to that required to fly a 747. He is thus at considerable risk. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
Hatunen writes:
Really? How many private pilots do you know well enough to make that claim? Quite a few. If. I'm not particulary fond of hitting tubulence when I'm in an airliner, but physical sensations are hard to avoid if you fly much. Sure, but they are not an integral part of flying, unless you fly specifically for the thrill of sensations. There are lots of YouTube videos of inexperienced, stupid pilots doing just that. They don't always identify themselves, but eventually their names tend to appear in NTSB reports. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:31:05 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote: Virtually every pilot arguing about it here is a low-time private pilot. I can spot them from a mile away. And all of those lowtime private pilots can spot a non-pilot who thinks he knows-it-all from a computer game a mile away. [Mixie has a way of mixing truisms that hardly need stating with assertions that come from his apparent thinking that a computer game gives him life experience, and with assertions that rely on believing that a PC game is the equivalent of a large professional flight simulator.] -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
george writes:
Bull****. Plain and simple. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ60fitlU70 All I see is a stupid pilot violating Federal air regulations and overstressing his (rented?) aircraft. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
JohnT writes:
What physical sensations are you referring to? All of them. Some people are very into strong sensations. You don't fly and you know nothing about flying. I have flown in airplanes many times. The sensations felt by pilots are identical to those felt by passengers. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:39:01 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote: Hatunen writes: Really? How many private pilots do you know well enough to make that claim? Quite a few. If. I'm not particulary fond of hitting tubulence when I'm in an airliner, but physical sensations are hard to avoid if you fly much. Sure, but they are not an integral part of flying, unless you fly specifically Good grief. That's an almost stupid thing to say. for the thrill of sensations. There are probably a few pilots who do things in the air for the thrill of it. And there are some stunt pilots who do it for pay or to win prizes. But as the old pilots' saw goes, "There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots." But there are plenty of undesired sensations in flying even for cautious pilots. There are lots of YouTube videos of inexperienced, stupid pilots doing just that. How many? Two? Four? A dozen? They don't always identify themselves, but eventually their names tend to appear in NTSB reports. You know this how? Are you psychic? Although I admit, as I said above, thre are no old, bold pilots. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
Hatunen writes:
And all of those lowtime private pilots can spot a non-pilot who thinks he knows-it-all from a computer game a mile away. Since they are not important, what they do or don't spot is irrelevant. They are just noise. |
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 06:30 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 08:34 PM |
Co-pilot fell ill ,pilot lands solo | scuffler | Asia | 4 | March 12th, 2004 11:14 AM |
HAL Helps TAs Who Lost Houses In Fires! | Ray Goldenberg | Cruises | 0 | January 1st, 2004 04:21 PM |