Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
in [Airline Travel]
|
From: jimp on 22 Jun 2010 20:22 In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hatunen writes: > >> Your computer chair bounces? > > No, but the view out the window and the instruments tell me all that I need to > know. Vision is the most important sense in flying by far. Delusional babble. It is important to learn how to handle ALL the sensory inputs, especially the ones that tend to cause you to redo your breakfast. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: jimp on 22 Jun 2010 20:25 In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> 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 Wrong. Spins are not required for private and below. <snip delusional babble about small, flat screens looking just like a real airplane panel> -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: Wingnut on 22 Jun 2010 21:45 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 Ah, the Cessna 152 strawman again. I was wondering when that would show up. First sentence of non-quoted text as it just so happens -- which means one of my co-workers owes me ten bucks. :-) > Just as experience in driving a Yugo doesn't necessarily help in > driving a Formula 1 car. Experience driving versus never having sat behind a wheel should make some difference. It's plain old common sense! > 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. There will be some commonalities. Zero experience in a plane will make you worse than having had some experience. I don't claim you'd be proficient; just that you wouldn't actually be *less* capable than someone who knew *nothing*. Again, common sense. > 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. First of all, we weren't talking "pilots of small private aircraft", at least not until you came along and introduced that particular strawman. Second, they may not be able to do a good job, but the total non-pilot will surely do a worse job. 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. (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.) >> 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. 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. Since this basic fact (learning curves are monotonic increasing) is disputed by you, I'm forced to conclude that you're insane and thus not really worth debating with any further.
From: Wingnut on 22 Jun 2010 21:46 On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 05:01:37 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote: > On Jun 20, 4:30 am, Wingnut <wingnut45...(a)hotmail.invalid> 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. This statement, if true, remains irrelevant. Learning curves are monotonic increasing. She cannot be actually worse than someone with zero piloting experience and is probably at least slightly better. Furthermore, the original post to this thread did not state anything of the sort, only that she had a commercial pilot's license, which as another person pointed out normally includes non-zero experience with larger craft.
From: Hatunen on 22 Jun 2010 22:47
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 01:16:41 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> 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 (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |