Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

JohnT writes:

How could you possibly know that as you have never ever flown any aircraft?

Because passengers and pilots share the same fuselage.

On Jun 23, 4:42*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
JohnT writes:
What physical sensations are you referring to?

All of them. Some people are very into strong sensations.

You don't fly and you know nothing about flying.

I have flown in airplanes many times. The sensations felt by pilots are
identical to those felt by passengers.

This is minor point, but anyone who thinks all sensations are
identical in an airplane, the differences being most evident in larger
ones, clearly does not understand the physics. An airplane is not a
point mass.

"Assume a spherical cow" indeed.

a writes:

This is minor point, but anyone who thinks all sensations are
identical in an airplane, the differences being most evident in larger
ones, clearly does not understand the physics. An airplane is not a
point mass.

Movements such as turbulence are generally translational: everyone on the
aircraft feels exactly the same thing.

Rotational movements about the center of gravity of the aircraft will have
magnitudes that vary with the distance from the CG, but passengers near the
cockpit or the tail of the aircraft will feel sensations that are essentially
identical to those felt by the pilots. In fact, on a 747, some passengers
(often in first class) will feel movements of larger magnitude than those felt
by the pilots.

So I do understand the physics, and the fact remains that everyone on the
airplane feels essentially the same thing. The notion that the pilots up front
are riding a bucking bronco while the passengers sleep in comfort in the back
is total fantasy.

Airliners are flown with great attention to smooth rides and gentle movements.
These rides and movements are just as smooth and gentle for the pilots as they
are for the passengers.

On Jun 24, 8:40*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
george writes:
*Bull****. Plain and simple.
*Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ60fitlU70

All I see is a stupid pilot violating Federal air regulations and
overstressing his (rented?) aircraft.

How is CTC violating Federal Air Regulations?
They are training pilots to CPL standard in New Zealand.
And you should know that spinning an aircraft doesn't overstress it
either in the spin or recovery...

On Jun 23, 7:42*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
a writes:
This is minor point, but anyone who thinks all sensations are
identical in an airplane, the differences being most evident in larger
ones, clearly does not understand the physics. An airplane is not a
point mass.

Movements such as turbulence are generally translational: everyone on the
aircraft feels exactly the same thing.

Rotational movements about the center of gravity of the aircraft will have
magnitudes that vary with the distance from the CG, but passengers near the
cockpit or the tail of the aircraft will feel sensations that are essentially
identical to those felt by the pilots. In fact, on a 747, some passengers
(often in first class) will feel movements of larger magnitude than those felt
by the pilots.

So I do understand the physics, and the fact remains that everyone on the
airplane feels essentially the same thing. The notion that the pilots up front
are riding a bucking bronco while the passengers sleep in comfort in the back
is total fantasy.

Airliners are flown with great attention to smooth rides and gentle movements.
These rides and movements are just as smooth and gentle for the pilots as they
are for the passengers.

I can assure you I understand the physics quite well.

a writes:

I can assure you I understand the physics quite well.

I didn't ask.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 00:50:24 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Hatunen writes:

REally. That's their last words?

Well, it's a saying, not a finding of fact.

Ah. and jsut who says it?

It illustrates a point, namely,
that thrillseeking behavior is incompatible with safe, normal flight.

Whoa. No ****? I woulda never thunk it.

I would have though the last
words would be something more like "AAW ****!!!".

Yes, this is supported by the data, along with things like "Uh-oh" or "Amy, I
love you."

But you said the last words were "Watch this"; nowreally, which
ones are the last words?

You obviously haven't been on some flights I've been on.

I fly only with safe, major carriers if I can.

Never hit a major downdraft in a safe, major carrier, then?

Again, I suspect you haven't been on some of the routes I've been
on in small planes.

Turbulence is one thing. Pilot incompetence is another.

Uh. Well, yeah. But you said there weren't any sensations, not
that turbulence was due to pilot incompetence. Or are you NOT
saying turbulence is due to pilot incompetence? It's a bit
unclear.

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

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:31:05 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Wingnut writes:

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

It makes a difference

Thanks.

There will be some commonalities.

Very little in common, and much of it too dangerous to use. For example,
the 747 has flight controls, and so does the Cessna

And here we have the Cessna strawman again.

Virtually every pilot arguing about it here is a low-time private pilot.
I can spot them from a mile away. They're in the "danger zone" of
low-time pilots, where most accidents occur. Enough experience to feel
confident, but not enough experience to feel humble.

Orthogonal issue to the original discussion.

The results might be the same. The results for the pilot might actually
be worse if his experience encourages him to take risks that the
non-pilot would not (such as attempting to fly the aircraft by hand).

Do you honestly think someone with a *commercial* license won't typically
be well past that "not experienced enough to be humble" stage?

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.

The only viable scenario is one in which the pilot/non-pilot is given
instructions by a qualified third party.

In your ever-so-humble opinion perhaps.

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.

He might find the magnetic compass faster, and he'd recognize the yoke
and rudder pedals and throttles. Beyond that, nothing is really certain.

Er, horizon? Altimeter?

Wingnut writes:

Do you honestly think someone with a *commercial* license won't typically
be well past that "not experienced enough to be humble" stage?

Often, but not always. I've already mentioned Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701, a
shining example of incredibly stupid pilots who had CPLs.

And there are commercial pilots with far less experience than that. Need I
mention Colgan Air?

In your ever-so-humble opinion perhaps.

Without instruction, a non-pilot--or a pilot without experience in type--would
be in very hot water.

Er, horizon? Altimeter?

That's probably what he'd be asking himself. The AI had pretty colors that are
easy to spot, but the rest is not so obvious. He might spot the standby AI and
altimeter, but those aren't the instruments to watch.

Hatunen writes:

Ah. and jsut who says it?

I've heard it repeated in aviation circles many times.

Whoa. No ****? I woulda never thunk it.

An advantage to USENET is that it can expose you to ideas that might never
have crossed your mind previously.

But you said the last words were "Watch this"; nowreally, which
ones are the last words?

Small aircraft don't have CVRs.

Never hit a major downdraft in a safe, major carrier, then?

None that I found alarming. Downdrafts are harmless as long as you're well
above terrain.

Uh. Well, yeah. But you said there weren't any sensations ...

Where?