Primary training in a Hi Perf complex acft

On 2007-03-26 12:56:03 -0700, "Brian" said:


To the list of pluses for the Tomahawk add Fuel Capacity. It has
nearly 2 hours more range than most 150/152's.

As an interesting note if you research the NTSB reports for Spin
Accidents in Pa38's you will find that for the most part only Flight
Instructors and Examiners seem to have issues with the Stall spin
Charateristics.

I have taught a lot of pilots to fly in Tomahawks and I think they are
great. My biggest pluses are, in no particular order,the Switchable
fuel tanks, Large Cockpit, and Fuel Capacity.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

I couldn't find those reports. In fact, I found only a dozen reports
overall for the PA38. And only one of those was a stall/spin -- a
student pilot who ran out of gas on takeoff and tried to turn back to
the airport at too low an altitude.

Apparently I am doing something that limits the search too much. The
only parameter I have is PA38 and any time from 1950 to the present.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Mar 27, 5:38 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
George writes:
Why, if you're correct, do they have train operators present to make
announcements, close doors, and operate the train in case of
unforeseen difficulties
???

A human being is always handy for unexpected situations, and since BART was
one of the first fully automated systems, it had a lot of problems initially.
There may be union requirements for people, too.

The fact that a human operator is aboard a train doesn't mean that the train
can't operate itself in normal service, just as the presence of pilots aboard
an airliner doesn't mean that the airliner cannot fly itself most of the time.

But you claimed that these rapid transit trains were fully automated.
Which is demonstrated by BARTs web page to be wrong

Another error you can chalk up ...

george writes:

But you claimed that these rapid transit trains were fully automated.

As I recall, that was the original design intention. BART is not alone, of
course. Here in Paris, line 14 of the subway system is fully automated, so
much so that it continues to run during strikes because it doesn't require any
human beings in the first place.

In general, if a system can operate normally without human intervention, it is
fully automated, even if exceptional situations require human intervention
(beyond certain design points, all exceptions require human intervention in
any system).

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

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

george writes:

But you claimed that these rapid transit trains were fully automated.

As I recall, that was the original design intention.

Backpedallign fjukkwit



Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

Yeah, so?

So those systems only require pushing buttons and turning dials.

No, they don't.

Anyone can do that.

No they can't.



Nope., and there is no rule, fjukktard

That depends on the company.

No it doesn't.


bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

Sorry, disregard, friendly fire. Thought it was a funny thing for
maniac to say..

And yet you rejected it because you thought I said it. Had someone
else said it, you would have accepted it. You reveal much with your
haste to reply.


Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwh!


God I love usenet.


Bertie

Nomen Nescio wrote in
:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Mxsmanic

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

Sorry, disregard, friendly fire. Thought it was a funny thing for
maniac to say..

And yet you rejected it because you thought I said it.

Read again, moron.
It was your sincerity that was rejected.

Not exactly, If you transpose that statement further up the
conversation, it fits into mxs's line. since I neccesarily fly through
these pretty quickly (lotta kooks out ther) It seemed to fit into his ,
for the lack of a better expression "line of argument". It wasn't til I
saw where my reply had landed in the thread that I realised my error.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Maxwell writes:

Acceleration forces, vertigo and knowing that making a wrong decision
could cost you your life - have never been effectively dealt with in
simulators.

Give me an example.

And they not
only contribute to, but can actually multiply pilot workload to the
point you overlook some of the simplest and most routine tasks. Tasks
that can cost you your life.

See above.

That's why full motion cockpits, parabolic displays,
sounds and vibrations are so valuable to simulators. They do
everything possible to detach a pilots thoughts from the fact he is
not flying the real thing, and help induce stress and pilot workload.

They are there mainly for the sake of realism, and not specifically to
induce stress.

But no mater how good they become, they will never be able to stress
you out like the real thing.

If you reach the point in real life that you feel stressed, you're
already in trouble.

Even learning to solo in a
simple aircraft is hardly beyond anyone's budget. It the US it's very
comparable to the cost of a new PC.

It's more than ten times more expensive, actually. Where I live,
getting a PPL costs about $15,000-$20,000.

If you ever do, I seriously doubt we would ever
hear from you again. At least under your current moniker. You would
quickly realize the difference, and the weakness of your current
perceptions.

I've surprised people before. They think I'm like them, and they're
wrong.

But you just what to debate. When what you should be offering not me,
but all those that have come before me, is a sincere amount of
gratitude.

Ah, the real truth comes out. You want the ego trip; there's no
altruism in your motivations.

I'm just the opposite. I don't have an ego to stroke, so I don't care
about that. I just like to exchange information. I like to learn new
things, and I like to teach others anything that I know.

But you know almost nothing...



Bertie

Eeyore wrote in
:



Mxsmanic wrote:

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

No, they aren't. that problem was recognised over twenty years ago
and we hand fly whenevr possible, fjukktard.

You may hand fly, but many do not. Some countries are producing
airline pilots with extremely limited skills, and yet they still
manage to fly the aircraft, most of the time.

I thought the FAA still held autoland in contempt.


Fjukkwit.


bertie

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

No, they don't.

What else do they require besides pushing buttons and turning knobs?

No they can't.

Anyone can push buttons and turn knobs.

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