Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
in [Airline Travel]
|
From: Mxsmanic on 20 Jun 2010 05:45 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 will not necessarily be of any use in flying a 747 or a SR-71. The basic principles are the same, but nothing more. Just as experience in driving a Yugo doesn't necessarily help in driving a Formula 1 car. > The notion that experience at something improves one's ability at that > something is a "myth"? Since when? 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. 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. To fly an airliner, you need experience and/or training in flying airliners, not Piper Cubs. > 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. A person with no flying experience who is compelled to take the controls of a small aircraft without any automation runs a high risk of crashing. In a large transport-category aircraft with heavy automation, though, he has a much better chance of being able to land safely, if someone can give him instructions over the radio. (Without instructions, his chances are just as poor as they would be in the small aircraft.) > Not the scenario here. This person was a commercial pilot, not just > someone who had operated their own personal plane. The same principle still applies to a certain extent, unless the commercial pilot experience was in the same type of aircraft. If the FA had a CPL but had not flown for 20 years, she may never have flown an airliner.
From: Mxsmanic on 20 Jun 2010 05:46 Wingnut writes: > 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. You can fly commercially in a Cessna. And unless you also have a job as a commercial pilot in addition to the CPL, you might not ever fly anything much larger than that.
From: Dudley Henriques on 20 Jun 2010 08:01 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. DH
From: jimp on 20 Jun 2010 13:38 In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> 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. 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. Nope. In a situation like that, what would be most important would be her ability to stay calm, not panic and fly the airplane. Look around at the average non-pilots in an airliner when a sudden noise like the gear coming up happens and you will see lots of faces with momentary fear and it gets worse with even the mildest of turbulence. The reality is the average non-pilot is afraid of flying to some extent or other and becomes frightened at just about every bump or sudden change in the background noise. My opinion is all the sensory inputs (of which those only "flying" sims have no clue) along with the the huge responsibility of flying an aircraft full of other people would likely overwhelm the average non-pilot. And since all pilots are trained "to follow instructions precisely", that becomes two reasons that a random pilot has better chances of success than a random non-pilot. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: Hatunen on 20 Jun 2010 20:30
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:45:01 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> 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 will not necessarily be of any use in flying a 747 or a SR-71. The lady in question has a commercial license, which implies more experience than noodling around in a 152. At a minimum the lady would know pulling back on the yoke raises the nose and and pushing forward makes for nose down. She would also know that turning the yoke will not make the plane turn unless the pedals are also used. And, of course, she will know most of the lingo and will know where to look when told to watch the air speed or the artificial horizon. She will presumably know the difference between mag north and true north and will have a pretty good idea of which direction runway 120 points. She would know the purpose of the flaps, the VOR, and so on. She will know how to read an air chart. >The >basic principles are the same, but nothing more. Just as experience in driving >a Yugo doesn't necessarily help in driving a Formula 1 car. It will help in driving the Formula 1 from the garage to the street. >> The notion that experience at something improves one's ability at that >> something is a "myth"? Since when? > >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. Nonsense. While teh cockpit of a 747 is pretty complex, it still contains the basic instruments of a twin-engine Beech. >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. I don't recall anyone here saying they could. >To fly an airliner, you need experience and/or training in flying >airliners, not Piper Cubs. Well, duh. That's not the question at hand. >> 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. You've heard many people claim this? Who? And especially, who here in this thread? As usual you're making up straw men. >A person with no flying experience who is compelled to take the controls of a >small aircraft without any automation runs a high risk of crashing. In a >large transport-category aircraft with heavy automation, though, he has a much >better chance of being able to land safely, if someone can give him >instructions over the radio. (Without instructions, his chances are just as >poor as they would be in the small aircraft.) But this is a case where it would be especially helpful if the person taking over the controls had, say, a commercial license, for the reasons I cited above. >> Not the scenario here. This person was a commercial pilot, not just >> someone who had operated their own personal plane. > >The same principle still applies to a certain extent, unless the commercial >pilot experience was in the same type of aircraft. If the FA had a CPL but had >not flown for 20 years, she may never have flown an airliner. See the reasons I cited above. Among other things, an average passenger sitting in the left or right seat would probably go into shock at the mere sight of an airline instrument panel. Some one with a commercial license, would immediately look for the instruments familiar to him or her. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |