Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
in [Airline Travel]
|
From: george on 18 Jun 2010 16:34 On Jun 19, 6:17 am, "Bob Myers" <nospample...(a)address.invalid> wrote: > Mxsmanic wrote: > > > There are two myths that need to be dispelled, namely (1) the notion > > that anyone with any piloting experience necessarily will do a better > > job of getting an plane home safely in an emergency, and (2) the > > notion that someone without any piloting experience would necessarily > > crash the airplane. > > Your personal experience re piloting is...what, exactly? > He's our own little Walter Mitty... No doubt this incidence infringes on one of his dreams
From: Dudley Henriques on 18 Jun 2010 19:11 On Jun 18, 12:13 am, Wingnut <wingnut45...(a)hotmail.invalid> wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:10:01 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote: > > It helped certainly that this nice lady had flying experience but it > > was by NO MEANS essential to what she was asked to do or what she > > actually did in the cockpit. > > > Had the Captain opted to, he most certainly could have completed the > > flight to a safe completion from the left seat without assistance. He > > might have had to extend his reach a bit at times, but nothing earth > > shattering for sure. > > > All in all, this was a class crew and they did a class job, right down > > to the stew who very classily and politely deflated the media hype on > > her role in the completion of this flight. > > 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. Actually her prior light plane flying experience could be a negative believe it or not. Her ability to follow explicit instruction resulting in any control input involves an aircraft time line requiring a response to input correction involving an input to initiate and an input to stop the response. Assuming a requirement for a correct result each and every time a control input was initiated, prior experience in a light plane enters the element of expectation into the input equation for the newbie. In other words, the difference between the actual result of any manual control input to a 767's controls in any and all axis, especially when coupled, roll/ yaw.......pitch/roll etc.....by a newbie needing the result to be right the first time tried from verbal instruction with the newbie having an expected response based on a totally different airplane places an EXTRA element into the equation that could easily extend/ alter/ or change the required response time line. This scenario could easily make the correction time line longer than it might have been had no expectation of aircraft response been involved. All this is just a fancy way of saying that prior experience in a Cessna 150 might not matter in a 767 being landed by a newbie following detailed instruction. DH
From: atlieb on 18 Jun 2010 20:02 On Jun 18, 12:51 pm, Mxsmanic <mxsma...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Not necessarily. In a situation like that, what would be most important would > be her ability to follow instructions precisely, and the availability of a > qualified pilot to guide her over the radio. These two things would override > any piloting experience she might have. WRONG
From: Wingnut on 20 Jun 2010 04:29 On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 19:51:12 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote: > Wingnut writes: > >> 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. > > Not necessarily. So, you're sayign that flight experience is irrelevant to flying an aircraft? > There are two myths that need to be dispelled, namely (1) the notion > that anyone with any piloting experience necessarily will do a better > job of getting an plane home safely in an emergency The notion that experience at something improves one's ability at that something is a "myth"? Since when? > (2) the notion that someone without any piloting experience would > necessarily crash the airplane. I don't think anyone here has claimed that. Though the less someone knows about operating an aircraft, the poorer their odds. > An experienced Cessna pilot without help over the radio will probably > get in some possibly fatal trouble Not the scenario here. This person was a commercial pilot, not just someone who had operated their own personal plane.
From: Wingnut on 20 Jun 2010 04:30
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. |