Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

writes:

It is important to learn how to handle ALL the sensory inputs, especially
the ones that tend to cause you to redo your breakfast.

It's important to learn to ignore them. Some people are better at this than
others.

writes:

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:

It's a judgment call. Spin practice is no longer required

Wrong.

Spins are not required for private and below.

Hmm.

I'm gradually learning to put people in the killfile. I just have to learn to
keep them there. With some people, giving them another chance is just a waste
of time.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

But more to the point that you tried to diverge to, if reading the manual
is sufficient, why would you then need a simulator of any kind?

You wouldn't, but a simulator is more fun.

Nope, and to be of any use the simulator has to fully simulate the cockpit
of the real thing, like the flaps being a lever on the floor, for example.



You have said time and again you have never flown any airplane, much less
a different model after a read of the manual for the new airplane.

I simply meant that I've actually read the manufacturer's documentation for
the 747 (well, parts of it).

What you implied was you flew a new model of airplane with reading the
manual as your only instruction so your statement was deliberate deception.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

The G changes are a big part of a stall and something one needs to learn
to essentially ignore which can only be done by actually doing it.

You can ignore it without any prior practice. It's a question of personality
and mood and mindset.

Delusional nonsense.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

It is important to learn how to handle ALL the sensory inputs, especially
the ones that tend to cause you to redo your breakfast.

It's important to learn to ignore them.

No ****?

I just said that several times now.

Some people are better at this than
others.

Yep, some people can do it rather quickly and others like you never can.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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

Ah, the Cessna 152 strawman again. I was wondering when that would show
up. First sentence of non-quoted text as it just so happens -- which
means one of my co-workers owes me ten bucks. :-)

Just as experience in driving a Yugo doesn't necessarily help in
driving a Formula 1 car.

Experience driving versus never having sat behind a wheel should make
some difference. It's plain old common sense!

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.

There will be some commonalities. Zero experience in a plane will make
you worse than having had some experience. I don't claim you'd be
proficient; just that you wouldn't actually be *less* capable than
someone who knew *nothing*. Again, common sense.

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.

First of all, we weren't talking "pilots of small private aircraft", at
least not until you came along and introduced that particular strawman.

Second, they may not be able to do a good job, but the total non-pilot
will surely do a worse job.

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. (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.)

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.

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.

Since this basic fact (learning curves are monotonic increasing) is
disputed by you, I'm forced to conclude that you're insane and thus not
really worth debating with any further.

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 05:01:37 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:

On Jun 20, 4:30Â*am, Wingnut 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.

This statement, if true, remains irrelevant. Learning curves are
monotonic increasing. She cannot be actually worse than someone with zero
piloting experience and is probably at least slightly better.

Furthermore, the original post to this thread did not state anything of
the sort, only that she had a commercial pilot's license, which as
another person pointed out normally includes non-zero experience with
larger craft.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 01:16:41 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Hatunen writes:

Well, my instructor, who insisted on teaching spins to me
although no longer required for certification said there weren't
any more real pilots.

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.

My goodness. That's a very specific claim. Do you have any
support for it?

The cure was worse than the disease. So the emphasis was shifted
to avoiding spins, rather than recovering from them, at least for PPLs.

I guess you don't have to know how to recover from a spin if you
don't spin.

Exactly. It's safer to practice avoiding spins, but to only learn the theory
of spin recovery.

Like an add-on dual monitor?

No. Look up TrackIR.

I fail to see how a PC can
realistically give the sensation of an instrument panel over two
feet across.

See above.

Unless your computer chair can bounce up and down and lean left
and right, it's not the same.

As I've said, a lot of private pilots seem to give physical sensations
priority over everything else.

Really? How many private pilots do you know well enough to make
that claim?

But there's a lot more to flying than a
roller-coaster ride.

Are you supposin' that I said otherwise?

I don't care much for the physical sensations myself,
although takeoff and landing are kind of pleasant if they are smooth.

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.

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

On Jun 23, 11:16*am, Mxsmanic 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.

Bull****. 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

On Jun 23, 12:20*pm, wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Sure it does, including the feeling of falling when the stall breaks and
the increased G load as you pull out.

It doesn't simulate motion. Motion is only one small part of flying.

The G changes are a big part of a stall and something one needs to learn
to essentially ignore which can only be done by actually doing it.


Remember the first fully developed stall you ever did solo ? :-)