Why The Hell... (random rant)

On Apr 7, 9:46 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
They aren't, though. Most training for airline pilots today takes place in
simulators, so pure simulator-based training is only one small step away from
the current practice.

This is incorrect. Most training for airline pilots takes place in
the right seat.

The magnetic compass is included in the minimum equipment list of any
aircraft I know, so obviously authorities disagree with that opinion.

Or they simply haven't bothered to change the regulations, and have little
motivation to do so.

Or there's actually somebody on the planet who's compentent and who
disagrees with you. Did you ever entertain that possibility?

I suppose if you consider malfunctioning avionics to be acceptable, you can
take off with that. I wouldn't.
If you knew anything about flight training or actually flying, you
wouldn't be saying this. I flew with NO instruments as part of my pre-
solo training.

The required avionics are mission dependent. For example, if you're
not going to fly IFR, you don't need any instruments that are only
used for IFR. As long as you don't go below the minimum equipment
list, and as long as you placard any inoperative instruments, you
don't need everything working.

On Apr 7, 7:53 am, wrote:


They aren't, though. Most training for airline pilots today takes place in
simulators, so pure simulator-based training is only one small step away from
the current practice.

This is incorrect. Most training for airline pilots takes place in
the right seat.

Actualy Alpha, you are incorrect. It is against FARs to conduct
training during part 135 or 121 ops. ALL airline training is done in
the sim.


The required avionics are mission dependent. For example, if you're
not going to fly IFR, you don't need any instruments that are only
used for IFR. As long as you don't go below the minimum equipment
list, and as long as you placard any inoperative instruments, you
don't need everything working.

Here again, all airline flights are conducted on an instrument flight
plan. As an interesting note, its been about 10 years since the
airlines have done any partial panel training .

K Baum writes:

Here again, all airline flights are conducted on an instrument flight
plan. As an interesting note, its been about 10 years since the
airlines have done any partial panel training .

Even in sims? Why was it discontinued?

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

On Apr 7, 5:49 pm, "K Baum" wrote:
Actualy Alpha, you are incorrect. It is against FARs to conduct
training during part 135 or 121 ops. ALL airline training is done in
the sim.

I think we're working with different definitions of training. The
first officer, especially in the beginning, is still learning the
job. And training how to do the captain's job takes place largely in
the right seat.

The number of hours spent is the simulator is dwarfed by the time
spent learning while working in the right seat.

The required avionics are mission dependent. For example, if you're
not going to fly IFR, you don't need any instruments that are only
used for IFR. As long as you don't go below the minimum equipment
list, and as long as you placard any inoperative instruments, you
don't need everything working.

Here again, all airline flights are conducted on an instrument flight
plan. As an interesting note, its been about 10 years since the
airlines have done any partial panel training .

And I wasn't talking about airline flights here.

Have all airlines really stopped partial-panel training? Do you have
a citation for this? I'd love to learn more.

On Apr 7, 4:14 pm, wrote:
On Apr 7, 5:49 pm, "K Baum" wrote:


I think we're working with different definitions of training. The
first officer, especially in the beginning, is still learning the
job. And training how to do the captain's job takes place largely in
the right seat.

True, I was refering mostly to MV and PV. That is all done in the sim.
The first time you take the controls of an actual plane is during OE
with sheep in the back. The captains job is not that dificult to
learn. Lets see, show up at the last minute, take regular naps, and
plenty of reading material, oh yea, and pick up the bar tab .

Here again, all airline flights are conducted on an instrument flight
plan. As an interesting note, its been about 10 years since the
airlines have done any partial panel training .

And I wasn't talking about airline flights here.

Sorry, between all the back and forth with this MX individual, I must
have got confused. Airlines are the primary users of MELs, and maybe
this is what caused me to think this.

Have all airlines really stopped partial-panel training? Do you have
a citation for this? I'd love to learn more.

I have never seen any form of partial panel done since the old
turboprop days. I can only guess that they have not found this to be a
very effective use of sim time.The only thing I can remember anything
close to partial panel was about 6 years ago when I was ask to fly a
raw data approach. You do have standby instruments of course, but I
have never seen anyone have to demonstrate flight by reference to
these, and it is not in the training curriculum or even the FCM. Sorry
I cant be more helpful, but my guess is that with the redundancy built
into a modern airliner, it just isnt necesary. Another thing to
consider is that with a glass cockpit, all of the flight info is on
one instrument anyways so partial panel isnt really valid.

In rec.aviation.student K Baum wrote:
these, and it is not in the training curriculum or even the FCM. Sorry
I cant be more helpful, but my guess is that with the redundancy built
into a modern airliner, it just isnt necesary. Another thing to
consider is that with a glass cockpit, all of the flight info is on
one instrument anyways so partial panel isnt really valid.

Yikes! What if that one instrument goes tango uniform? It's a good thing
there's always a compass to fall back on, then! :-)

What if the failure isn't in the instrument, but in a sensor? Would that
warrant practice analogous to partial panel, or are there enough redundant
sensors that it wouldn't be worth it?

(For those who aren't paying close attention, we've switched mid-paragraph
from redundant airline cockpits to small GA planes with glass panels.)

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

Alan Gerber writes:

Yikes! What if that one instrument goes tango uniform? It's a good thing
there's always a compass to fall back on, then! :-)

Large airliners have a great deal of redundancy, and that helps. Contrast
this with things like a G1000 in a small plane, which has no redundancy at
all.

What if the failure isn't in the instrument, but in a sensor? Would that
warrant practice analogous to partial panel, or are there enough redundant
sensors that it wouldn't be worth it?

Airliners often do have redundant sensors as well.

For those who aren't paying close attention, we've switched mid-paragraph
from redundant airline cockpits to small GA planes with glass panels.

The latter are much riskier than the former.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Alan Gerber writes:

Yikes! What if that one instrument goes tango uniform? It's a good
thing
there's always a compass to fall back on, then! :-)

Large airliners have a great deal of redundancy, and that helps. Contrast
this with things like a G1000 in a small plane, which has no redundancy at
all.

What if the failure isn't in the instrument, but in a sensor? Would that
warrant practice analogous to partial panel, or are there enough
redundant
sensors that it wouldn't be worth it?

Airliners often do have redundant sensors as well.

For those who aren't paying close attention, we've switched mid-paragraph
from redundant airline cockpits to small GA planes with glass panels.

The latter are much riskier than the former.


And since we all know you have never flown or even worked on a 747, your
reference are?

The only thing I can remember anything
close to partial panel was about 6 years ago when I was ask to fly a
raw data approach.

What is a raw data approach?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

writes:

I think we're working with different definitions of training. The
first officer, especially in the beginning, is still learning the
job. And training how to do the captain's job takes place largely in
the right seat.

But he is not learning to fly, not even the aircraft in question. His
"training" is company procedures and policies.

The number of hours spent is the simulator is dwarfed by the time
spent learning while working in the right seat.

More specifically, the number of hours spent in the simulator is dwarfed by
the time spent in the right seat. However, the simulator time is pure
training. The right-seat time is just work, and getting used to aspects of
the job unrelated to flight per se.

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