Sad day for Mxsmanic

Mike Ash wrote:
In article
,
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

On Feb 22, 8:28?pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Mike Ash writes:
The bit in the article where he talks about a simmer being asked to land
a passenger plane after the pilots have been debilitated is pretty
funny. Absolutely no mention whatsoever of the difficulty or
improbability of actually pulling off such a feat. It is simply assumed
that it could be done.

It can easily be done.

Large commercial transports are heavily automated, and most flights are
conducted under computer control for most of their durations. ?With the
automation in operation, no particular flying skill is required to keep the
aircraft flying, and since the automation can also land the aircraft, no
particularly flying skill is required for landing, either.

Because of this, any person of reasonable intelligence who can follow
instructions precisely can land an airliner, with help over the radio from a
pilot.

I teach glass cockpit training and I see very intelligent, experienced
pilots have lots of trouble working with the automation. In fact I
have *never* encountered a pilot who thought it was easier to fly with
the automation than to fly on old steam gauges.

To be fair, that's a biased sample, as you're working with people who
already have flying skill, so naturally they'll find flying to be the
easy part. Somebody with a whole lot of experience with electronic
gadgets but little experience with flying may not have that same
experience. I'd expect a computer geek who has never touched real flight
controls to have an easier time following instructions on button-pushing
than control-handling, although he may well have a tough time of both,
and I still have little confidence in the ultimate outcome unless
somebody actually tries it and proves otherwise.

There's also the psychological issue that most people think without
constant "tending" of the airplane by both the pilots and air traffic
control, an airplane will fall out of the sky.

Your average person would likely be paralyzed by fear if told they had
to land the airplane.

Then there is the practical issue of finding someone who can tell a
totally ignorant person how to find the necessary buttons to push
and what to enter entirely from memory for a given random aircraft
type. There is a reason for type training by airlines.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:

Has nobody thought of who is going to tune the funking radio to someone to
give the newbie driver instructions?

On Feb 22, 11:59*am, John Godwin wrote:
It seems as if Microsoft is pulling the plug on MS Flight Simulator.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7902468.stm

--

To be honest its a bit sad. I certainly don't have time to do all the
real flying I need to do (I have a waiting list of students) much less
time to play with the computer. However, I remember as a youth getting
version 2.0 of MSFS and playing with that. Back then the graphics were
just little white lines and you reallyl didn't know you were at an
airport until you overran it. However, the simulation was ok and the
gauges looked cool to me.

The funny thing with flight simulators is that they work so hard to
make them realistic in look, visuals etc. In truth that is about the
least important aspect of a real simulator.

-Robert

ManhattanMan wrote:
wrote:

Has nobody thought of who is going to tune the funking radio to someone to
give the newbie driver instructions?

Good point.

While it is highly likely that an airliner's radios will already be
tuned to ATC, the odds are about zero that there will by anyone around
at the ATC end with any knowledge of the cockpit layout of a random
airliner.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article ,
says...


I'm reminded of that old joke about a man collapsing and a woman
bending over to help, only to be pushed aside by a (MX-like) character
who said "stand back, I am trained as a first responder." She said
"Good, when you get to that part that says call a doctor, I'll be
right here."


Not even a joke really.
My dad WAS a doctor, and he was called to the scene of an accident one day. A
worker had fallen off a roof, and possibly broken his back or neck. When my dad
got there, there was a guy in a sort of khaki uniform giving orders, telling
everyone what to do, and preparing to pick the patient up. When my dad went to
the patient to perform some basic workup, to find the extent of his injuries,
he was pushed away by the guy in charge, who told him he had the situation
"under control". Not being one to be brushed away like that he asked the
identity of the man in uniform - he was a local milk deliveryman. The dairy had
decided only a short time earlier it would improve their "patriotic" image to
have their drivers dress in nearly military garb. Maybe MX's dad?

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...


I do not accept your conjecture as proof.

Likewise.


So to summarize:

I have first hand knowledge of what needs to be done. I contend it cannot be
done, and as evidence, I offer that it has never been done.

You have read about the activity, and contend that it can be done. As
evidence you offer that you have read about the activity and contend that it
can be done.

Mighty compelling argument.

On 2009-02-23, wrote:
RSTS/E, RSX-11, RT-11, TOPS-10, TOPS-20, VMS...

PDP-6, PDP-8, PDP-10, PDP-11, VAX...

All of those are emulated, and the smaller PDPs and VAXen aren't all
that hard to come by as actual hardware. (I even have a MicroVAX of my own).
The old IBM systems are emulated by Hercules (so EBCDIC is also something
that's available in an emulated system).

While not every hole will be filled, any system that has a modicum of
popularity will be emulated, especially the type of machine people had
at home in large numbers. For example, the Sinclair Spectrum (a popular
1980s 8 bit system in the UK) is emulable on most modern platforms from
the Nintendo DS and Wii to a 64 bit UltraSPARC server, and almost the
entire software catalogue of well over 10,000 items of software is
avaialable on modern media.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

wrote in message
...
ManhattanMan wrote:
wrote:

Has nobody thought of who is going to tune the funking radio to someone
to
give the newbie driver instructions?

Good point.

While it is highly likely that an airliner's radios will already be
tuned to ATC, the odds are about zero that there will by anyone around
at the ATC end with any knowledge of the cockpit layout of a random
airliner.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Don't need a effing radio. All you need is access to usenet. You can log on
to r.a.p. and get more advice than you need. That'll probably get you close
enough to the ground to pull off SOME kind of landing........for better or
worse. Just remember, there's a planet out there and it's headed straight
for you!

In article
,
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

On Feb 22, 11:59*am, John Godwin wrote:
It seems as if Microsoft is pulling the plug on MS Flight Simulator.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7902468.stm

--

To be honest its a bit sad. I certainly don't have time to do all the
real flying I need to do (I have a waiting list of students) much less
time to play with the computer. However, I remember as a youth getting
version 2.0 of MSFS and playing with that. Back then the graphics were
just little white lines and you reallyl didn't know you were at an
airport until you overran it. However, the simulation was ok and the
gauges looked cool to me.

I wouldn't worry. While MS may have hit the point of diminishing
returns, there is still certainly a place in the market for simulators.
X-Plane is going to get a huge boost from this, and I'll bet than one or
two new simulators will be popping up to fill the void.

The funny thing with flight simulators is that they work so hard to
make them realistic in look, visuals etc. In truth that is about the
least important aspect of a real simulator.

When your goal is simply to sell as many $50 copies as possible, those
aspects are extremely important.

Mike

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

In article ,
wrote:

Mike Ash wrote:
To be fair, that's a biased sample, as you're working with people who
already have flying skill, so naturally they'll find flying to be the
easy part. Somebody with a whole lot of experience with electronic
gadgets but little experience with flying may not have that same
experience. I'd expect a computer geek who has never touched real flight
controls to have an easier time following instructions on button-pushing
than control-handling, although he may well have a tough time of both,
and I still have little confidence in the ultimate outcome unless
somebody actually tries it and proves otherwise.

There's also the psychological issue that most people think without
constant "tending" of the airplane by both the pilots and air traffic
control, an airplane will fall out of the sky.

Your average person would likely be paralyzed by fear if told they had
to land the airplane.

Yes, I had nearly the exact same thought. Even if (big if) a simmer had
all the knowledge from his PC experience, would he be able to perform
when his life and a couple hundred other lives are on the line?

Really, I think that he probably would. Humans tend to step up in a
crisis more than fall apart. But it's certainly important, and not a
given by any means.

Then there is the practical issue of finding someone who can tell a
totally ignorant person how to find the necessary buttons to push
and what to enter entirely from memory for a given random aircraft
type. There is a reason for type training by airlines.

Yeah, I think the ease of this is overstated. You have to start talking
to somebody on the ground and communicate the gravity of the situation.
THEY then have to figure out who to talk to, who has to figure out, etc.
Eventually you're going to need a team of at least two people on the
ground, I figure, one of whom is an experienced pilot and the other a
person who can translate the pilot talk into something the simmer can
understand. (Experts aren't always good at explaining things to laymen,
even well-read laymen, alas.) And I figure they're going to have to
actually be *in* an identical airplane, or a simulator with an identical
cockpit, so that they can properly remember where everything is. And
then they have to talk the guy down.

All of this has to happen before the poor *******s up in the air run out
of fuel and die. Can even this much be done, much less the actual
talking-through-the-landing part? I'm doubtful myself. If anyone with
airline logistics experience would like to weigh in, I'd love to hear
about the practicality of simply finding the people and equipment from
someone who knows.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon