Mentally unstable airline pilot forcibly removed from flight deck

On Nov 21, 4:49*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Denny wrote in news:2dfb2455-aefb-4fa1-a1e6-
:

Given that the flight attendant holds a Commercial ticket and has the
instrument rating (is not current) it can be assumed that she was
capable of running a check list and handling the radio during an
approach and landing...
It is unlikely that she had 767 specific training, but the pilot knew
the systems and could direct her just the same as if he were giving
dual to a pilot going for the rating...

And the other thing is that landing the jet is not rocket science...
The cabin pressurization needed to be switched to landing mode... The
V speeds calculated (automatically displayed on the glass panel and
the pilot knows how to get those)... Flaps and gear at the proper
times - and remember to flare...
Fewer details than landing a pressurized prop twin...

Actually, none of that is true for the 767.

the cabin is automatic, the destination landing elevation having been
set before departure, the V speeds do not come up on Efis on a 767, they
come from the FMS and are set the old fashioned way with bugs on the ASI
and the flaps and gear thing is the same with one or two guys.
any large jet can easily be flown single hadned, though. Even the old
ones with FEs need very little doing if everything is working OK.



ya, ya, ya, there are lots more details for the onboard PSU/power/
heating/cooling/etc/ systems, but those can all be dealt with after
landing...

Actually, there's very little to do there in a 767. After landing you
just retract the speedbrakes, pull the flaps up, turn off the xponder
and radar and that's pretty much it.

Bertie

Saw a similar comment from a heavy captain on aus.aviation. So why
would they even bother to ask if there was a pilot on board and scare
the **** out of the pax for no reason.

terry writes:

Saw a similar comment from a heavy captain on aus.aviation. So why
would they even bother to ask if there was a pilot on board and scare
the **** out of the pax for no reason.

The pilot may have felt that someone else with piloting experience would be
better at providing assistance than someone with none. However, in this type
of situation, that isn't necessarily so. While a trained pilot would almost
certainly not be worse, he might not be better, either. You need someone who
can follow instructions, not necessarily someone who knows how to fly. A
pilot might understand the instructions more easily at first, but he might
also be less inclined to do exactly as he is told, which could present a
hazard that outweighs the utility of his piloting experience.

Mxsmanic wrote:
terry writes:

Saw a similar comment from a heavy captain on aus.aviation. So why
would they even bother to ask if there was a pilot on board and scare
the **** out of the pax for no reason.

The pilot may have felt that someone else with piloting experience would be
better at providing assistance than someone with none. However, in this type
of situation, that isn't necessarily so. While a trained pilot would almost
certainly not be worse, he might not be better, either. You need someone who
can follow instructions, not necessarily someone who knows how to fly. A
pilot might understand the instructions more easily at first, but he might
also be less inclined to do exactly as he is told, which could present a
hazard that outweighs the utility of his piloting experience.

Your total lack of knowledge of piloting physical aircraft leads you
to a delusional conclusion.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Nov 20, 6:55*pm, wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
terry writes:

Saw *a similar comment from a heavy captain on aus.aviation. *So why
would they even bother to ask if there was a pilot on board and scare
the **** out of the pax for no reason.

The pilot may have felt that someone else with piloting experience would be
better at providing assistance than someone with none. *However, in this type
of situation, that isn't necessarily so. *While a trained pilot would almost
certainly not be worse, he might not be better, either. *You need someone who
can follow instructions, not necessarily someone who knows how to fly. *A
pilot might understand the instructions more easily at first, but he might
also be less inclined to do exactly as he is told, which could present a
hazard that outweighs the utility of his piloting experience.

Your total lack of knowledge of piloting physical aircraft leads you
to a delusional conclusion.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Accident reports involving poor cockpit management don't agree with
you. And a personal slam doesn't constitute a well considered
rebuttal either. I for one would like to know why you think his
response was delusional and without bringing up "sims".

wrote in message
...
On Nov 20, 6:55 pm, wrote:
Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Accident reports involving poor cockpit management don't agree with
you. And a personal slam doesn't constitute a well considered
rebuttal either. I for one would like to know why you think his
response was delusional and without bringing up "sims".

-------------------------------------------------------

What accident reports do you have, that would indicate a pilot in this
situation, would be less likely to do as he was told?

"Maxwell" #$$9#@%%%.^^^ wrote in news

wrote in message
...
On Nov 20, 6:55 pm, wrote:
Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Accident reports involving poor cockpit management don't agree with
you. And a personal slam doesn't constitute a well considered
rebuttal either. I for one would like to know why you think his
response was delusional and without bringing up "sims".

-------------------------------------------------------

What accident reports do you have, that would indicate a pilot in this
situation, would be less likely to do as he was told?




You are an idiot.


Bertie

wrote:
On Nov 20, 6:55Â*pm, wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
terry writes:

Saw Â*a similar comment from a heavy captain on aus.aviation. Â*So why
would they even bother to ask if there was a pilot on board and scare
the **** out of the pax for no reason.

The pilot may have felt that someone else with piloting experience would be
better at providing assistance than someone with none. Â*However, in this type
of situation, that isn't necessarily so. Â*While a trained pilot would almost
certainly not be worse, he might not be better, either. Â*You need someone who
can follow instructions, not necessarily someone who knows how to fly. Â*A
pilot might understand the instructions more easily at first, but he might
also be less inclined to do exactly as he is told, which could present a
hazard that outweighs the utility of his piloting experience.

Your total lack of knowledge of piloting physical aircraft leads you
to a delusional conclusion.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Accident reports involving poor cockpit management don't agree with
you. And a personal slam doesn't constitute a well considered
rebuttal either. I for one would like to know why you think his
response was delusional and without bringing up "sims".

Start with "You need someone who can follow instructions,".

You do realize what this thread is about, and it isn't CRM?

If his post made any sense at all, the copilot would ALWAYS be someone
who knew nothing about piloting, which is a rediculous conclusion.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Start with "You need someone who can follow instructions,".

People who don't know how to do something have no choice but to follow
instructions in order to do it. This can be an advantage when you want
someone who will follow instructions without deviation.

If his post made any sense at all, the copilot would ALWAYS be someone
who knew nothing about piloting, which is a rediculous conclusion.

That does not follow.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Start with "You need someone who can follow instructions,".

People who don't know how to do something have no choice but to follow
instructions in order to do it. This can be an advantage when you want
someone who will follow instructions without deviation.

The entire purpose of having a copilot is to relieve the pilot of
workload.

Having an ignorant copilot adds to the workload as not only does the
pilot have to tell them what to do, he has to tell them how to do it.

As for not doing what they are told to do, all pilots of real airplanes,
which is what the person in queston is, understand the concept of PIC and
copilot, something you obviously do not.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...
On Nov 20, 6:55 pm, wrote:
Your total lack of knowledge of piloting physical aircraft leads you
to a delusional conclusion.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

And a personal slam doesn't constitute a well considered
rebuttal either. I for one would like to know why you think his
response was delusional and without bringing up "sims".

MrsManic isn't worthy of a well considered response.

Consider this: The pilot asks the 'helper' to get the altimeter setting from
the destination field.

How many other instructions do you think a non-pilot would need before being
able to provide that information?