Boarding with engines running

TheSmokingGnu writes:

There are 14 airports alone in the Paris metropolitan area ...

Yes, but they are all in the suburbs.

... and Orly is like a hop, skip, and a bus ride away.

It's more than an hour away, and I don't think it welcomes general aviation.

Ha, I'm just trying to imagine the (very colorful) language the LAX
controllers would use to tell me that my landing clearance was denied;
they get mad enough when you encroach on their outlying space, much less
trying to use it whilst the 744's fly past.

Why would they deny you landing clearance?

And, Van Nuys isn't all that great for GA training.

It's a lot better than Orly.

So why worry about it?

That's what I ask. The FAA worries excessively about the wrong things.

Besides, medicals aren't excuses to skip regular checkups with your
normal physician, which *DOES* pick up this sort of thing.

No, regular check-ups won't pick it up, either. It's often the sort of thing
you must be looking for.

If you're red/green colorblind, how can you tell which navigation light
is on which wing, and what direction and heading is that aircraft off
the left wing going?

By the way the lights move in relation to each other.

However, most people with red-green color blindness have deuteranomaly or
protanomaly, which means that they can still see red and green, but it is more
difficult for them than it is for normal people (and they see them slightly
differently, although they may still be distinct).

Ok, different situation. You go NORDO because some very key widget in
the radio bus decides to burn out. What light signal did the tower just
give you? Was it "clear to land" or "hold and circle"? What do you mean
you can't tell the difference between the lights?

Just make sure you carry a handheld.

And the list goes on and on. Color is key to flight.

Hardly. There are a handful of situations in which it matters. Usually it
doesn't.

It's the danger of living that attracts people to flying. The knowledge
that at some random moment, they may break down and actually experience
something worth remembering instead of sitting indoors and pounding away
endlessly at the keyboard.

That may be true for _some_ pilots, but certainly not all. There are many
potential attractions to flying, and not everyone is looking for adventure.

The danger of death comes with every activity in our lives, from flying
to breathing.

In which case there's nothing special about flying. You undermine your own
argument.

I can. Can you?

Nobody can.

It's part and parcel of unusual attitude training.

It's not part of flight.

If you don't feel it, it's because you're not sensitive to it; the
airline pilot's thus being so (rather, MORE sensitive) are able to
maintain aircraft positioning without disturbing or alerting the paying
curmudgeons in the back to their maneuvering. QED.

No, they don't feel it either, or I should say, they don't feel it any more
than the passengers do. Everyone is in the same aircraft.

Thus proving the worth (or lack thereof) of simulation as applicable to
real world operation.

You watch the waypoints click by both in simulation and in real life.

I'm sorry, I thought all of flight was formula, and hard fact.

It is, in theory, but that doesn't mean that everyone does the calculations.

I thought, you being such an expert in the operation of the 737-800 (as
you profess), that you could give me precise performance figures given a
complete scenario. I guess YOU AREN'T UP TO THE TASK.

No, I just know that the 737-800 does this for me, thanks to being familiar
with the aircraft. The AFDS turns the aircraft, not I.

And the answer is: it's a trick question. You don't know your current
heading, and so you don't know how far away you are from your intended
course. Even if you did know that, the answer is variable (do you start
the rollout immediately from your current heading? Do you start when 30
degrees abeam? Do you start as you pass it?). The real answer is:
enough. Enough so that the aircraft is operated in a smooth manner, with
a minimum of surface deflection, in an expeditious manner, with as
little error as possible. That is flying, and it's VISCERAL, not calculable.

Clearly, tin-can pilots predominate here. I'm reminded of a rower in crew who
claims that a cruise-ship captain steers the ship by the feel of the oars in
his hands.

That's the way YOU choose to fly the aircraft. The plane is, first and
foremost, flown by hand, by pilots, with training and experience.

No, it is not. Almost all of the average commercial flight is flown by the
FMC. The pilots typically only fly take-off and landing; and in low
visibility, they may use the autoland feature to have the aircraft land itself
as well.

Heaven forbid he should find out the lateral-G load of the unexpected
maneuver prevents him from reaching that critical switch which completes
the sequence, eh?

There are very few emergencies that involve such forces. Large airliners are
only sound to about 2.5 Gs or so. A G force great enough to prevent him from
reaching a switch may well be enough to snap the wings off also, so there's
not much point in worrying about it.

Heaven forbid he should feel the buffet in the controls of the oncoming
stall, which his instrument cluster failed to report to him due to a
blocked static port, eh?

His instruments warn him of critical angle of attack long before he comes
anywhere near it. It is unlikely to ever reach the buffer or even
stick-shaker stage if he is watching his instruments.

Like, say, a high-G turn. QED.

He won't (read: can't) be making any turns of more than 2.5 Gs or so.
Airliners are not fighter planes.

Your left engine falls off (wasn't properly reattached by the
groundcrew). You're now 2000+ lbs. out of list, have heavy yaw from the
operating engine, losing all sorts of other systems (like the hydraulics
that move your ailerons and flaps), generally getting a wicked shimmy,
AND you have no idea what just happened.

Guess it was your fault for letting it go that far, eh?

You can train for that in the sim.

Your failure to spot the satire is very telling.

Your conversion of a mistake to "satire" is noted.

That seems to be a recurring theme with you.

Not really; but if I don't know, I'm not afraid to say so.

I thought you were experienced enough to make edicts on procedure and
operation?

I'm experienced enough to make some statements with a high level of certainty,
but not others.

What happened to your burst of confidence?

Confidence is what allows me to admit when I don't know. People who never say
that they don't know are insecure liars.

Emergency procedures are some of the FIRST things you should learn, and
THE FIRST thing you should have memorized before stepping into the
cockpit.

Normal procedures first; then emergencies.

Engine out is a big one, because you can loose a compressor to
AOA on takeoff, or if you get a bird, or if your fuel system isn't
configured properly (or not functioning properly in the first place).

If you haven't learned to fly an aircraft normally, you won't be able to learn
how to fly it abnormally.

Losing an engine means lots of complicated, sometimes counter-intuitive
(and hand-flown) procedures. And you don't ****ing know.

I know part of it, but I don't practice it much. I don't have to deal with
failures in simulation, and I don't plan to fly for real, so such exercises
are academic, and I undertake them only out of curiosity.

I promised myself that I wouldn't do intellectual battle with an unarmed
opponent, but in your case, you're already running with scissors, naked
through a field of cactus.

If that were true, you wouldn't have to resort to personal attacks. I don't.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Yes, but they are all in the suburbs.

Oh, call the whaamublance, would ya.

Why would they deny you landing clearance?

Because LAX is one of the busiest airports in the world, which handles
thousands of flights a day, and the controllers may be juggling a
half-dozen aircraft each, which all has to move in a smooth procession.
Sure, a 172 pilot can ASK for clearance, but he's more than very likely
to receive a "thanks, but no thanks".

That's what I ask. The FAA worries excessively about the wrong things.

The point, dear boy, is that YOU worry about it too much.

No, regular check-ups won't pick it up, either. It's often the sort of thing
you must be looking for.

I can't speak for French doctoring, but here this sort of thing is par
for the course.

By the way the lights move in relation to each other.

Which requires that you not only stare at the lights for any given
period of time, it also deducts critical time you may need to:

Adjust the controls
Fiddle a knob
Check your instruments
Move the #*(&@ out of the way of the jumbo jet on a collision course
with your plane.

Sorry, you need to be able to look and KNOW, immediately. Only color
does that.

it is more
difficult for them than it is for normal people (and they see them slightly
differently, although they may still be distinct).

In which case they can apply for a SODA. If they pass, huzzah.

Just make sure you carry a handheld.

Your handheld is burnt out, and all your batteries are dead. And there's
no power port in the plane. And the Mets are playing that evening.

You are well and truly NORDO. What signal did the tower just give you?

Hardly. There are a handful of situations in which it matters. Usually it
doesn't.

Like:

Reading a chart
Reading weather
Checking airspeed
Checking fuel for water and correct grade

Nope, still need it.

There are many
potential attractions to flying, and not everyone is looking for adventure.

Yes, they all are. You don't fly because it's a horrid trudge uphill in
sleet, you do it because you want to experience something you wouldn't
get staying on the ground (not, again, that you would know).

In which case there's nothing special about flying. You undermine your own
argument.

That was never my argument to begin with, fool.

Nobody can.

I can.

It's not part of flight.

That wasn't a condition of it's possibility. Your mistake, again.

No, they don't feel it either, or I should say, they don't feel it any more
than the passengers do. Everyone is in the same aircraft.

Do you not read?

Their sensitivity to it is greater than yours. True, the forces are the
same throughout the aircraft, but their perception is far better than
you or I.

No, I just know that the 737-800 does this for me, thanks to being familiar
with the aircraft. The AFDS turns the aircraft, not I.

Then you haven't learned to fly the aircraft. You've learned to twiddle
a knob, and any ground-pounder can do that.

Take the controls sometime.

Clearly, tin-can pilots predominate here.

Clearly, supercilious bull**** predominates here with you. Don't be so
crass to think a pilot does not know how to fly his aircraft, because
you can twiddle a knob (remember our "murder mystery" argument).

No, it is not.

How would you know?

The pilots typically only fly take-off and landing; and in low
visibility, they may use the autoland feature to have the aircraft land itself
as well.

Pilots typically fly all the way through the initial parts of the
departure, procedure turns and such. It's a bitch to find out George has
gone kaddywompus in IFR traffic.

Large airliners are
only sound to about 2.5 Gs or so.

Care to state a source?

A G force great enough to prevent him from
reaching a switch may well be enough to snap the wings off also

At 2.5G, your 20lbs. head weighs 50lbs. Your 40lbs. arm weighs 100lbs.
And if you were actually flying at max G load (around 4G's for a
passenger aircraft), your arm could weigh 160lbs. Still think you have
the arm strength to hit that switch?

Heaven forbid he should feel the buffet in the controls of the oncoming
stall, which his instrument cluster failed to report to him due to a
blocked static port, eh?

His instruments warn him of critical angle of attack long before he comes
anywhere near it. It is unlikely to ever reach the buffer or even
stick-shaker stage if he is watching his instruments.

Did you not actually read that? Your instruments aren't telling you
anything. They think everything is fine. The plane is approaching a
stall and they can't detect it, and you (Mr. I Don't Need to Feel
Anything), take it all the way through to a full-root stall, because
you're super-confident that your instruments will never ever lie to you.

Congratulations, your worthless pronouncements have killed all aboard.

He won't (read: can't) be making any turns of more than 2.5 Gs or so.
Airliners are not fighter planes.

Read the (two) above.

You can train for that in the sim.

That's not the point.

Your conversion of a mistake to "satire" is noted.

Wasn't a mistake in the least. You need to read it again.

I'm experienced enough to make some statements with a high level of certainty,
but not others.

So your statement "Try me" was just fallacious bluff, then? You are
ready to admit that flying a virtual 737 in no way permits nor prepares
you for the task of taking a real bird to the air?

Normal procedures first; then emergencies.

Emergency procedures are listed first in the POH for a reason.

You may begin to learn some normal procedures first, but once again you
fail to properly read my statement. Emergency procedures are the first
you memorize (which you have clearly failed to do, in the confidence
that your perfect computing environment will never offer up any undue
failure lest you request it).

If you haven't learned to fly an aircraft normally, you won't be able to learn
how to fly it abnormally.

And by all appearances, you haven't learned to fly, period.

I know part of it, but I don't practice it much. I don't have to deal with
failures in simulation, and I don't plan to fly for real, so such exercises
are academic, and I undertake them only out of curiosity.

So again you freely admit that simulation does not prepare you for the
rigors and necessity of flying a real aircraft, and that it's inherent
safety makes you a complacent pilot with sloppy habits?

I think we've made a breakthrough here.

If that were true, you wouldn't have to resort to personal attacks.

What personal attacks? So far as I know, everything I've said is true.

Please take half a second to actually read the post. Most of this crap
is you failing to register what exactly it is you're reading.

Please don't try to run with scissors, naked, through a field of cactus,
backwards.

TheSmokingGnu

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

TheSmokingGnu writes:

There are 14 airports alone in the Paris metropolitan area ...

Yes, but they are all in the suburbs.

... and Orly is like a hop, skip, and a bus ride away.

It's more than an hour away, and I don't think it welcomes general
aviation.

Ha, I'm just trying to imagine the (very colorful) language the LAX
controllers would use to tell me that my landing clearance was
denied; they get mad enough when you encroach on their outlying
space, much less trying to use it whilst the 744's fly past.

Why would they deny you landing clearance?

And, Van Nuys isn't all that great for GA training.

It's a lot better than Orly.

So why worry about it?

That's what I ask. The FAA worries excessively about the wrong
things.

Besides, medicals aren't excuses to skip regular checkups with your
normal physician, which *DOES* pick up this sort of thing.

No, regular check-ups won't pick it up, either. It's often the sort
of thing you must be looking for.

If you're red/green colorblind, how can you tell which navigation
light is on which wing, and what direction and heading is that
aircraft off the left wing going?

By the way the lights move in relation to each other.

However, most people with red-green color blindness have deuteranomaly
or protanomaly, which means that they can still see red and green, but
it is more difficult for them than it is for normal people (and they
see them slightly differently, although they may still be distinct).

Ok, different situation. You go NORDO because some very key widget in
the radio bus decides to burn out. What light signal did the tower
just give you? Was it "clear to land" or "hold and circle"? What do
you mean you can't tell the difference between the lights?

Just make sure you carry a handheld.

And the list goes on and on. Color is key to flight.

Hardly. There are a handful of situations in which it matters.
Usually it doesn't.

It's the danger of living that attracts people to flying. The
knowledge that at some random moment, they may break down and
actually experience something worth remembering instead of sitting
indoors and pounding away endlessly at the keyboard.

That may be true for _some_ pilots, but certainly not all. There are
many potential attractions to flying, and not everyone is looking for
adventure.

The danger of death comes with every activity in our lives, from
flying to breathing.

In which case there's nothing special about flying. You undermine
your own argument.

I can. Can you?

Nobody can.

It's part and parcel of unusual attitude training.

It's not part of flight.

If you don't feel it, it's because you're not sensitive to it; the
airline pilot's thus being so (rather, MORE sensitive) are able to
maintain aircraft positioning without disturbing or alerting the
paying curmudgeons in the back to their maneuvering. QED.

No, they don't feel it either, or I should say, they don't feel it any
more than the passengers do. Everyone is in the same aircraft.

Thus proving the worth (or lack thereof) of simulation as applicable
to real world operation.

You watch the waypoints click by both in simulation and in real life.

I'm sorry, I thought all of flight was formula, and hard fact.

It is, in theory, but that doesn't mean that everyone does the
calculations.

I thought, you being such an expert in the operation of the 737-800
(as you profess), that you could give me precise performance figures
given a complete scenario. I guess YOU AREN'T UP TO THE TASK.

No, I just know that the 737-800 does this for me, thanks to being
familiar with the aircraft. The AFDS turns the aircraft, not I.

And the answer is: it's a trick question. You don't know your current
heading, and so you don't know how far away you are from your
intended course. Even if you did know that, the answer is variable
(do you start the rollout immediately from your current heading? Do
you start when 30 degrees abeam? Do you start as you pass it?). The
real answer is: enough. Enough so that the aircraft is operated in a
smooth manner, with a minimum of surface deflection, in an
expeditious manner, with as little error as possible. That is flying,
and it's VISCERAL, not calculable.

Clearly, tin-can pilots predominate here. I'm reminded of a rower in
crew who claims that a cruise-ship captain steers the ship by the feel
of the oars in his hands.

That's the way YOU choose to fly the aircraft. The plane is, first
and foremost, flown by hand, by pilots, with training and experience.

No, it is not. Almost all of the average commercial flight is flown
by the FMC. The pilots typically only fly take-off and landing; and
in low visibility, they may use the autoland feature to have the
aircraft land itself as well.

Heaven forbid he should find out the lateral-G load of the unexpected
maneuver prevents him from reaching that critical switch which
completes the sequence, eh?

There are very few emergencies that involve such forces. Large
airliners are only sound to about 2.5 Gs or so. A G force great
enough to prevent him from reaching a switch may well be enough to
snap the wings off also, so there's not much point in worrying about
it.

Heaven forbid he should feel the buffet in the controls of the
oncoming stall, which his instrument cluster failed to report to him
due to a blocked static port, eh?

His instruments warn him of critical angle of attack long before he
comes anywhere near it. It is unlikely to ever reach the buffer or
even stick-shaker stage if he is watching his instruments.

Like, say, a high-G turn. QED.

He won't (read: can't) be making any turns of more than 2.5 Gs or so.
Airliners are not fighter planes.

Your left engine falls off (wasn't properly reattached by the
groundcrew). You're now 2000+ lbs. out of list, have heavy yaw from
the operating engine, losing all sorts of other systems (like the
hydraulics that move your ailerons and flaps), generally getting a
wicked shimmy, AND you have no idea what just happened.

Guess it was your fault for letting it go that far, eh?

You can train for that in the sim.

Your failure to spot the satire is very telling.

Your conversion of a mistake to "satire" is noted.

That seems to be a recurring theme with you.

Not really; but if I don't know, I'm not afraid to say so.

I thought you were experienced enough to make edicts on procedure and
operation?

I'm experienced enough to make some statements with a high level of
certainty, but not others.

What happened to your burst of confidence?

Confidence is what allows me to admit when I don't know. People who
never say that they don't know are insecure liars.

Emergency procedures are some of the FIRST things you should learn,
and THE FIRST thing you should have memorized before stepping into
the cockpit.

Normal procedures first; then emergencies.

Engine out is a big one, because you can loose a compressor to
AOA on takeoff, or if you get a bird, or if your fuel system isn't
configured properly (or not functioning properly in the first place).

If you haven't learned to fly an aircraft normally, you won't be able
to learn how to fly it abnormally.

Losing an engine means lots of complicated, sometimes
counter-intuitive (and hand-flown) procedures. And you don't ****ing
know.

I know part of it, but I don't practice it much. I don't have to deal
with failures in simulation, and I don't plan to fly for real, so such
exercises are academic, and I undertake them only out of curiosity.


What a marooon!



Bertie