Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

On 22/06/10 14:33, Mxsmanic wrote:
William Black writes:

End of story really, she has...

That's an extremely simplistic viewpoint. It's a bit like saying that anyone
who has ever driven any type of car can automatically drive any type of road
vehicle, while simultaneously saying that anyone who hasn't been behind the
wheel of a car cannot possible know how to drive one. Both notions are
baseless.

No, it's like saying that anyone who has driven any car knows a great
deal more about driving than someone who has played driving games on a
personal computer, no matter how sophisticated.

Now I don't know about where you live, which I seem to remember is a
cupboard in Paris, but here they don't let you take your driving test
on your PC. They tend to insist that you get your arse in a car and
drive one around town to make sure you do actually know what you're doing.

Same with aircraft, they don't actually issue a pilots license to
anyone unless they actually get in an aircraft and show someone that
they can fly the bloody thing.


--
William Black

These are the gilded popinjays and murderous assassins of Perfidious
Albion and they are about their Queen's business. Any man who impedes
their passage does so at his own peril.

William Black writes:

No, it's like saying that anyone who has driven any car knows a great
deal more about driving than someone who has played driving games on a
personal computer, no matter how sophisticated.

But that is also an incorrect statement.

If only real flying experience were important, then nobody would ever use
simulators. In fact, if someone wants to fly a 747, he is better off flying a
simulator of a 747 than he is flying a Cessna 152. While the simulation isn't
the same as flying a 747 for real, it's a lot closer than the real-world
experience of a Cessna 172 would be.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
William Black writes:

No, it's like saying that anyone who has driven any car knows a great
deal more about driving than someone who has played driving games on a
personal computer, no matter how sophisticated.

But that is also an incorrect statement.

No, it is not unless the simulator is so realistic it is impossible to
tell the difference between the simulation and reality and such simulators
do not exist.

If only real flying experience were important, then nobody would ever use
simulators. In fact, if someone wants to fly a 747, he is better off flying a
simulator of a 747 than he is flying a Cessna 152. While the simulation isn't
the same as flying a 747 for real, it's a lot closer than the real-world
experience of a Cessna 172 would be.

Delusional tunnel vision.

Flying a real airplane requires a broad set of skills and knowledge which
is why in the real world the individual skills are taught in varied
environments best suited for teaching the task at hand, i.e. the cockpit of
a C172, a desk, a light twin, a 747 simulator, a real 747, to name just a few.

Each has its own part in generating the total sum of skills.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
JohnT writes:

Which, of course, you have never ever done.

In simulation, often. In real life, never.

It is a computer game which you play.
--
JohnT

On 22/06/10 15:06, Mxsmanic wrote:
William Black writes:

No, it's like saying that anyone who has driven any car knows a great
deal more about driving than someone who has played driving games on a
personal computer, no matter how sophisticated.

But that is also an incorrect statement.

Nope.

It's true.

If only real flying experience were important, then nobody would ever use
simulators.

But that's NOT what I said you stupid child.

That you deliberately misrepresent me says more about about you than
about anything else.

In fact, if someone wants to fly a 747, he is better off flying a
simulator of a 747 than he is flying a Cessna 152. While the simulation isn't
the same as flying a 747 for real, it's a lot closer than the real-world
experience of a Cessna 172 would be.

They won't give anyone a license to fly a plane unless they've actually
flown a plane.

The training to fly a plane starts with the little ones and works up.

Everyone starts with something small with a fan on the front and works
up, even the fast jet jockeys in the military.

Nobody does it your way because they'd end up with an altimeter that
reads less than zero for a very short period of time...


--
William Black

These are the gilded popinjays and murderous assassins of Perfidious
Albion and they are about their Queen's business. Any man who impedes
their passage does so at his own peril.

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:06:38 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

William Black writes:

No, it's like saying that anyone who has driven any car knows a great
deal more about driving than someone who has played driving games on a
personal computer, no matter how sophisticated.

But that is also an incorrect statement.

If only real flying experience were important, then nobody would ever use
simulators. In fact, if someone wants to fly a 747, he is better off flying a
simulator of a 747 than he is flying a Cessna 152.

While the simulation isn't
the same as flying a 747 for real, it's a lot closer than the real-world
experience of a Cessna 172 would be.

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

Tell us: does the simulator simulate a stall?

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

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:42:52 +0100, "JohnT"
wrote:


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
.. .
JohnT writes:

Which, of course, you have never ever done.

In simulation, often. In real life, never.

It is a computer game which you play.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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.



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

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.

Tell us: does the simulator simulate a stall?

Yes.

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.

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.

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.

On Jun 23, 5:21*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

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

Just when you think he couldn't get any sillier he does.