Why The Hell... (random rant)

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?

Maxwell writes:

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

My study and simulation of the aircraft. What are yours?

You really should try to discuss the topic at hand, rather than try to
discredit me. There's not much to be gained in the latter if you haven't
established your own credibility with the former.

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

On 4/8/2007 7:33 PM Mxsmanic jumped down, turned around, and wrote:

You really should try to discuss the topic at hand, rather than try to
discredit me.

You really should try to quit telling others how and what to post.

You seem upset. Perhaps you should take a tranquilizer.
--
dgs

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Maxwell writes:

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

My study and simulation of the aircraft. What are yours?

You really should try to discuss the topic at hand, rather than try to
discredit me. There's not much to be gained in the latter if you haven't
established your own credibility with the former.


Exacty, based on information you pulled out of your butt!

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.