![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mxsmanic wrote:
There are two myths that need to be dispelled, namely (1) the notion that anyone with any piloting experience necessarily will do a better job of getting an plane home safely in an emergency, and (2) the notion that someone without any piloting experience would necessarily crash the airplane. Your personal experience re piloting is...what, exactly? Bob M. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 19, 6:17*am, "Bob Myers" wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote: There are two myths that need to be dispelled, namely (1) the notion that anyone with any piloting experience necessarily will do a better job of getting an plane home safely in an emergency, and (2) the notion that someone without any piloting experience would necessarily crash the airplane. Your personal experience re piloting is...what, exactly? He's our own little Walter Mitty... No doubt this incidence infringes on one of his dreams |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 18, 12:51*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Not necessarily. In a situation like that, what would be most important would be her ability to follow instructions precisely, and the availability of a qualified pilot to guide her over the radio. These two things would override any piloting experience she might have. WRONG |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 19:51:12 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
Wingnut writes: Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience would have become quite relevant indeed. Not necessarily. So, you're sayign that flight experience is irrelevant to flying an aircraft? There are two myths that need to be dispelled, namely (1) the notion that anyone with any piloting experience necessarily will do a better job of getting an plane home safely in an emergency The notion that experience at something improves one's ability at that something is a "myth"? Since when? (2) the notion that someone without any piloting experience would necessarily crash the airplane. I don't think anyone here has claimed that. Though the less someone knows about operating an aircraft, the poorer their odds. An experienced Cessna pilot without help over the radio will probably get in some possibly fatal trouble Not the scenario here. This person was a commercial pilot, not just someone who had operated their own personal plane. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Wingnut writes:
So, you're sayign that flight experience is irrelevant to flying an aircraft? That depends on the experience, and the aircraft. Flight experience in a Cessna 152 will not necessarily be of any use in flying a 747 or a SR-71. The basic principles are the same, but nothing more. Just as experience in driving a Yugo doesn't necessarily help in driving a Formula 1 car. The notion that experience at something improves one's ability at that something is a "myth"? Since when? A person with experience in a Cessna 152 still has none in a 747, and so he will not necessarily be any more useful in a 747 cockpit than a non-pilot would. Pilots of small private aircraft who believe that they could just slip into a 747 cockpit and fly it are just as naive as non-pilots who believe the same thing. To fly an airliner, you need experience and/or training in flying airliners, not Piper Cubs. I don't think anyone here has claimed that. Though the less someone knows about operating an aircraft, the poorer their odds. Yes. I've heard many people claim this, however, and it only shows that they are uninformed. A person with no flying experience who is compelled to take the controls of a small aircraft without any automation runs a high risk of crashing. In a large transport-category aircraft with heavy automation, though, he has a much better chance of being able to land safely, if someone can give him instructions over the radio. (Without instructions, his chances are just as poor as they would be in the small aircraft.) Not the scenario here. This person was a commercial pilot, not just someone who had operated their own personal plane. The same principle still applies to a certain extent, unless the commercial pilot experience was in the same type of aircraft. If the FA had a CPL but had not flown for 20 years, she may never have flown an airliner. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Wingnut writes: Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience would have become quite relevant indeed. Not necessarily. In a situation like that, what would be most important would be her ability to follow instructions precisely, and the availability of a qualified pilot to guide her over the radio. These two things would override any piloting experience she might have. Nope. In a situation like that, what would be most important would be her ability to stay calm, not panic and fly the airplane. Look around at the average non-pilots in an airliner when a sudden noise like the gear coming up happens and you will see lots of faces with momentary fear and it gets worse with even the mildest of turbulence. The reality is the average non-pilot is afraid of flying to some extent or other and becomes frightened at just about every bump or sudden change in the background noise. My opinion is all the sensory inputs (of which those only "flying" sims have no clue) along with the the huge responsibility of flying an aircraft full of other people would likely overwhelm the average non-pilot. And since all pilots are trained "to follow instructions precisely", that becomes two reasons that a random pilot has better chances of success than a random non-pilot. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 20, 12:38*pm, wrote:
My opinion is all the sensory inputs (of which those only "flying" sims have no clue) along with the the huge responsibility of flying an aircraft full of other people would likely overwhelm the average non-pilot. And since all pilots are trained "to follow instructions precisely", that becomes two reasons that a random pilot has better chances of success than a random non-pilot. EXACTLY. Case in point. I flew a Cessna for the first time in 8 years. I was told the avionics was similar to my Garmin 430 so I should not have ANY problem adopting to the plane. Sadly that was wrong and had I not had a pilot with me, I would still be scratching my head trying to tune the frequency. Radio was such to get odd numbers on the last two digits of the frequency, you had to PULL the knob out and twist. 117.9, I had to pull the knob out to dial in the 7. I didn't have to do that. I cannot imagine the NON pilot even setting the altimeter since you have to know to look for the kohlsman window to set it (if they find the thing at all in the myriad of instruments on a jet) Experience of the FA having pilot background was just one less step. She probably didn't even have to be told where the PTT was on the yoke AND that it's not a two way function like a telephone. I wouldn't expect the non pilot to know this if they had to step up to the plate on an emergency situation. Yeah, anybody can read a check list, but when it comes to the rubber meeting the road, I just don't see a non pilot doing the simple tasks inside a cockpit of a 767. It's a visual sensory overload for a passenger when I had the Sundowner, and I know it would be the same for me trying to find things in a 767. MX has no clue about sensory overload, the flat screen monitor twain't the real world since everything can be seen without turning one's head. Try that in a 767. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 18, 12:13*am, Wingnut wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:10:01 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote: It helped certainly that this nice lady had flying experience but it was by NO MEANS essential to what she was asked to do or what she actually did in the cockpit. Had the Captain opted to, he most certainly could have completed the flight to a safe completion from the left seat without assistance. He might have had to extend his reach a bit at times, but nothing earth shattering for sure. All in all, this was a class crew and they did a class job, right down to the stew who very classily and politely deflated the media hype on her role in the completion of this flight. Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience would have become quite relevant indeed. Actually her prior light plane flying experience could be a negative believe it or not. Her ability to follow explicit instruction resulting in any control input involves an aircraft time line requiring a response to input correction involving an input to initiate and an input to stop the response. Assuming a requirement for a correct result each and every time a control input was initiated, prior experience in a light plane enters the element of expectation into the input equation for the newbie. In other words, the difference between the actual result of any manual control input to a 767's controls in any and all axis, especially when coupled, roll/ yaw.......pitch/roll etc.....by a newbie needing the result to be right the first time tried from verbal instruction with the newbie having an expected response based on a totally different airplane places an EXTRA element into the equation that could easily extend/ alter/ or change the required response time line. This scenario could easily make the correction time line longer than it might have been had no expectation of aircraft response been involved. All this is just a fancy way of saying that prior experience in a Cessna 150 might not matter in a 767 being landed by a newbie following detailed instruction. DH |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:11:10 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
All this is just a fancy way of saying that prior experience in a Cessna 150 might not matter in a 767 being landed by a newbie following detailed instruction. Like Atta? Tell Dekker and Hilliard that. lol -- A fireside chat not with Ari! http://tr.im/holj Motto: Live To Spooge It! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pilot nearly crashes in IMC, Controller helps | pimenthal | Piloting | 32 | September 27th 05 01:06 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: Toronto Plane Pilot Was Allowed To Land In "Red Alert" Weather | Bill Mulcahy | General Aviation | 24 | August 19th 05 10:48 PM |
2 pilot/small airplane CRM | Mitty | Instrument Flight Rules | 35 | September 1st 04 11:19 PM |
non-pilot lands airplane | Cub Driver | Piloting | 3 | August 14th 04 12:08 AM |
Home Builders are Sick Sick Puppies | pacplyer | Home Built | 11 | March 26th 04 12:39 AM |