Sad day for Mxsmanic

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Steve Foley writes:

No it cannot. It would end in disaster.

Why?

It has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that any other outcome is
possible.

I do not accept your conjecture as proof.

When you have evidence that someone with nothing but simulator experience
has successfully landed an airliner full of passengers, let me know.

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
...
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Steve Foley writes:

No it cannot. It would end in disaster.

Why?

It has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that any other outcome is
possible.

I do not accept your conjecture as proof.

When you have evidence that someone with nothing but simulator experience
has successfully landed an airliner full of passengers, let me know.


This will be a circular conversation where MS insists that simulation is
close enough that it could easily be pulled off with no further proof.

"Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote in message
...



This will be a circular conversation where MS insists that simulation is
close enough that it could easily be pulled off with no further proof.

Maybe semi-circular.

When he responds with the same conjecture, there won't be any point in
repeating myself.

Steve Foley writes:

It has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that any other outcome is
possible.

That is not the same as demonstrating that it would end in disaster.

I do not accept your conjecture as proof.

Likewise.

When you have evidence that someone with nothing but simulator experience
has successfully landed an airliner full of passengers, let me know.

The non-pilot would not need simulator experience. He would only need the
ability to follow instructions, along with a cool head.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Steve Foley writes:

It has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that any other outcome is
possible.

That is not the same as demonstrating that it would end in disaster.

I do not accept your conjecture as proof.

Likewise.

When you have evidence that someone with nothing but simulator experience
has successfully landed an airliner full of passengers, let me know.

The non-pilot would not need simulator experience. He would only need the
ability to follow instructions, along with a cool head.


Having someone instruct you set the plane up to autoland is not you flying
an airliner to landing.

"Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com writes:

Having someone instruct you set the plane up to autoland is not you flying
an airliner to landing.

By whose definition?

The question was whether or not a non-pilot could land an airliner safely.
The answer is yes. Restricting the scenario to hand-flying only--something
that even the regular pilots don't normally do--is excessively artificial and
irrelevant, rather akin to saying that the pilots aren't really controlling
the airplane unless they turn off the hydraulics and move the control surfaces
with muscle power alone.

Mxsmanic wrote:
"Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com writes:

Having someone instruct you set the plane up to autoland is not you flying
an airliner to landing.

By whose definition?

The question was whether or not a non-pilot could land an airliner safely.
The answer is yes. Restricting the scenario to hand-flying only--something
that even the regular pilots don't normally do--is excessively artificial and
irrelevant, rather akin to saying that the pilots aren't really controlling
the airplane unless they turn off the hydraulics and move the control surfaces
with muscle power alone.

Babbling nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Feb 23, 6:29*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
"Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com writes:
Having someone instruct you set the plane up to autoland is not you flying
an airliner to landing.

By whose definition?

The question was whether or not a non-pilot could land an airliner safely..
The answer is yes. *Restricting the scenario to hand-flying only--something
that even the regular pilots don't normally do--is excessively artificial and
irrelevant, rather akin to saying that the pilots aren't really controlling
the airplane unless they turn off the hydraulics and move the control surfaces
with muscle power alone.

It seems to me it is a safe assertion for MX to make, since he does
not fly and therefore never exposes himself to the 'risk' or
opportunity of demonstrating his claim. Now, consider for a moment
those circumstances where both pilots were rendered unable to fly. The
most probable thing is probably some very serious physical accident in
the cockpit. It would not be 'neat', would it? The call would be for
someone who can fly a very likely crippled airplane, with no "stop-
reset-start" provision.

On Feb 24, 3:29*pm, a wrote:
Now, consider for a moment
those circumstances where both pilots were rendered unable to fly. The
most probable thing is probably some very serious physical accident in
the cockpit. It would not be 'neat', would it? The call would be for
someone who can fly a very likely crippled airplane, with no "stop-
reset-start" provision.

Such a scenario that both pilots are impaired doesn't bode well for
the pax or the hull insurance

a wrote:
Now, consider for a moment
those circumstances where both pilots were rendered unable to fly. The
most probable thing is probably some very serious physical accident in
the cockpit. It would not be 'neat', would it? The call would be for
someone who can fly a very likely crippled airplane, with no "stop-
reset-start" provision.

Maybe, maybe not. It could be from the in-flight beverages / snacks --
if they're shared at the front office. I never eat the peanuts on
Southwest, just so I can be standy in such an event. A few hours in
piston singles, eh that'll help.
T