Boarding with engines running

Mxsmanic wrote:
The nearest airport is about 15 miles away.

********, Europe's covered in airports. My money's still with the bog
theory.

I presume you don't live in Europe.

No, I live in LA, where everything is 4 times as expensive as it is in
other parts of the country, and 5 times what it cost to make.

And what are my friends going to do while I'm flying?

Enjoy the scenery?
Have a conversation with you?
Take the controls for a bit, to give 'em a taste for flight?
Enjoy the destination?

Unfortunately, it's much more than putting a name and address on a form.

Oh sure, there's space for things like your height, and weight, age,
that sort of thing. Not like you have to sign in blood or anything.

But the medical doesn't address
fitness, it addresses a long list of imaginary issues.

Does too, and those "imaginary" issues will become quite real and
apparent if you happen to have one in the middle of executing pilotary
duties. Thus, we have medical screening, which for private licenses and
GA aircraft, is about as menial as one can get (hardly more than a
bog-standard physical).

That proves my point. Most people don't rent or have fractional ownership of
their cars.

Every car under lease is rented from the car company, and every car
financed through a loan company is equitable to a fractional ownership
(in that you own your portion of the car so far paid).

Besides, many fractional ownerships get you access to a fleet of
hundreds of ready-to-fly machines, all over the country. I doubt anyone
keeps that many cars around.

Pulling negative Gs at altitude would greatly increase that probability.

Thus why most flight is conducted at bog-standard 1G, worry-wart.

But the real risk is that of an accident.

So utterly minimal with healthy piloting technique that it's hardly
worth considering.

After three hours or so, it's time to go again, depending on many variables.

You wouldn't want to sit still for three hours anyway.

Except that they aren't, as IFR flight proves, and as the accidents of pilots
flying in IMC without special training amply demonstrates.

Not only are your enumerations vastly overstated, what it "proves" is
that stress and unfamiliarity with proper procedure kills far more
people that out-of-the-blue accidents do. Thus, training programs strive
to teach applicable techniques, and even go so far as to put students
INTO those kinds of situations, so they can experience them personally
(and so be a less stressful situation, should it occur).

In any case, the vast majority of unqualified pilots do their civic duty
and stay well clear of things they're not supposed to be in.

Not only are the
largely unnecessary, but they are often worse than unnecessary, because they
are distracting and misleading.

You say again, having never felt them or used them.

I have felt them myself. I've been in a plane, just not at the controls. But
the whole plane moves, not just the cockpit.

Passenger flights in a jet don't count, dear. Airline pilots are paid to
make the flight as smooth and unperturbed as possible (as all pilots
strive for). You would **** yourself at the real workload to keep a
plane doing what it's supposed to do.

That depends on the flying environment. It's a lot more numbers and formulas
than seat of the pants.

I do not share this romantic illusion.

Tell me, then what roll rate is required for a 737-800 to roll wings
level at 250 knots and 10,000 feet on a heading of 030 with a wind from
the south at 10 knots, as the plane turns on standard rate west to east?

With certain key omissions. A perfect simulation of reality would not be a
simulation, nor would it serve much purpose.

Sounds like you need to look "simulation" up again.

What good, then, does a full-motion simulator serve to an airline pilot
practicing catastrophic failure scenarios? Surely, he doesn't need to
know what the plane will feel like it's doing? He could much more easily
reach the correct switches in the correct time and order if the deck
weren't gallaphanting about? When practicing in-cabin fires, it's much
too bothersome to use simulated smoke; how else could people see those
little guidance lights in the aisles to find the exits?

Hypocrisy, thy name is Manic.

Try me. I wouldn't mind a few hours in a 737 simulator. Specifically, a
737-800. I'm working on the 747-400.

What's the seventh step in the Engine out-In flight checklist?

Then why do so many of them crash?

That's the point. THEY DON'T. Hundreds upon thousands of GA flights
begin and end without any incident whatsoever.

Well, at least you made me smile.

That's what I do.

In contrast, I could have easily predicted the tone and perhaps even the words
of your post. I'm used to it.

Consistency's a bitch, innit?

If such predication was actually possible, you will have understood the
meaning of my post, digested it's particularly chosen verbiage, and
taken the long walk off a short pier you so desperately deserve. Since,
in point of fact, you did not, I will take that to mean that both A):
You didn't really get it, and B): you can't really predict my posts, and
are thus, once again, proven a feckless liar.

TheSmokingGnu