![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 18, 12:13*am, Wingnut wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:10:01 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote: It helped certainly that this nice lady had flying experience but it was by NO MEANS essential to what she was asked to do or what she actually did in the cockpit. Had the Captain opted to, he most certainly could have completed the flight to a safe completion from the left seat without assistance. He might have had to extend his reach a bit at times, but nothing earth shattering for sure. All in all, this was a class crew and they did a class job, right down to the stew who very classily and politely deflated the media hype on her role in the completion of this flight. Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience would have become quite relevant indeed. Actually her prior light plane flying experience could be a negative believe it or not. Her ability to follow explicit instruction resulting in any control input involves an aircraft time line requiring a response to input correction involving an input to initiate and an input to stop the response. Assuming a requirement for a correct result each and every time a control input was initiated, prior experience in a light plane enters the element of expectation into the input equation for the newbie. In other words, the difference between the actual result of any manual control input to a 767's controls in any and all axis, especially when coupled, roll/ yaw.......pitch/roll etc.....by a newbie needing the result to be right the first time tried from verbal instruction with the newbie having an expected response based on a totally different airplane places an EXTRA element into the equation that could easily extend/ alter/ or change the required response time line. This scenario could easily make the correction time line longer than it might have been had no expectation of aircraft response been involved. All this is just a fancy way of saying that prior experience in a Cessna 150 might not matter in a 767 being landed by a newbie following detailed instruction. DH |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pilot nearly crashes in IMC, Controller helps | pimenthal | Piloting | 32 | September 27th 05 01:06 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: Toronto Plane Pilot Was Allowed To Land In "Red Alert" Weather | Bill Mulcahy | General Aviation | 24 | August 19th 05 10:48 PM |
2 pilot/small airplane CRM | Mitty | Instrument Flight Rules | 35 | September 1st 04 11:19 PM |
non-pilot lands airplane | Cub Driver | Piloting | 3 | August 14th 04 12:08 AM |
Home Builders are Sick Sick Puppies | pacplyer | Home Built | 11 | March 26th 04 12:39 AM |