Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
in [Airline Travel]
|
From: george on 23 Jun 2010 00:52 On Jun 23, 11:16 am, Mxsmanic <mxsma...(a)gmail.com> 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. > Bullshit. 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
From: JohnT on 23 Jun 2010 03:20 "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6tg226tffkfve0gidd3u261of93e0379on(a)4ax.com... > > 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
From: Mxsmanic on 23 Jun 2010 16:31 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.
From: Hatunen on 23 Jun 2010 16:39 On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:31:05 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> 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 (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Mxsmanic on 23 Jun 2010 16:39
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. |