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 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 ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *