Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
in [Airline Travel]
|
From: Hatunen on 20 Jun 2010 20:31 On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:46:12 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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. Yep. Might not. Or might have. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: atlieb on 20 Jun 2010 22:26 On Jun 20, 7:30 pm, Hatunen <hatu...(a)cox.net> wrote: > 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. Not sure if you realize MX is a MSFS simmer, has never flown a real plane, not a CGI, and no real world experience inside a real plane. He just misrepresents himself as a pilot. He doesn't understand the real world as you describe above. Your last sentence is the key. Somebody with piloting experience would know what the altimeter would look like in the myriad of instruments presented in front of him or a DG for directional awareness. A non pilot may not be so quick to identify it. Put in glass cockpit in the mix, and you would have me lost trying to interpret the information being presented. I simply can't imagine a non pilot trying to figure it out especially with altitude and such.
From: Jim Logajan on 20 Jun 2010 23:24 Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net> wrote: > 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. Commercial airplane rating requires at least 10 hours training in retracts, controllable pitch prop, or be turbine powered. So it can't be completed using just a Cessna 150/152. You need some training in something like a Cessna 172RG or R182, at a minimum.
From: Dave Doe on 21 Jun 2010 01:15 In article <Xns9D9DCF93B90C6JamesLLugojcom(a)216.168.3.30>, JamesL(a)Lugoj.com says... > > Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net> wrote: > > 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. > > Commercial airplane rating requires at least 10 hours training in retracts, > controllable pitch prop, or be turbine powered. So it can't be completed > using just a Cessna 150/152. You need some training in something like a > Cessna 172RG or R182, at a minimum. Maybe in your country - not in New Zealand, Australia, nor (AFAIK) the UK. One only need 200 hours, plus a small amount of time under the hood (10hrs or 5?). The complex requirements are met on paper only (ie you do a very simple exam). -- Duncan.
From: Hatunen on 21 Jun 2010 01:28
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 05:01:37 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques <dhenriques(a)rcn.com> 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. Cessna makes or made (I don't recall the current structure of the personal aircraft inudstry) some heavier aircraft than the 150s I used to fly. Including some Jets (the Citation line). -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |