Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

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.

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.

It's an interesting hypothesis for sure, and such a scenario has
indeed been the subject of many discussions over time. The general
consensus in the area where I work in human factors in aircraft
accidents is that the result of such an attempt would depend on many
factors, a great many of these factors over and above the "experience"
factor of the newbie involved.
Makes a great movie though :-))
DH

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.

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.

The skill needed when both pilots get sick from the fish is an ability to do
as one is told, and this is independent of piloting experience. Additionally,
a qualified pilot needs to be available on the radio (preferably an
instructor). An experienced Cessna pilot without help over the radio will
probably get in some possibly fatal trouble, and conversely a non-pilot with
expert help over the radio may well be able to land the airplane safely.

This has a great deal to do with automation and the differences between
airliners and small aircraft.

You would definitely want to avoid someone who might be tempted to take
initiatives rather than just follow instructions--and for this reason, putting
a Cessna pilot in the left seat might actually be a worse idea than putting a
complete non-pilot in that seat. The non-pilot might be more likely to just do
as he is told, which is exactly what you need.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Mxsmanic wrote:
/snip/To fly an airliner, you need experience and/or training in flying
airliners, not Piper Cubs. /snip/

Sadly, the task is even more limiting: it is necessary to get flight
training in a PARTICULAR aircraft type. It's the systems know-how
that has to be built.

Let's see: would I know to turn on the two hydraulics control breakers,
the FMS1 and the FMS 2 breakers, spin up the APU , turn on the pneumatic
manifold to spin up one main engine, select radio frequencies via the
FMS CDU, initialize the INS - and on and on.....

Brian W
p.s. I cut out the entertainment NGs.

brian whatcott writes:

Let's see: would I know to turn on the two hydraulics control breakers,
the FMS1 and the FMS 2 breakers, spin up the APU , turn on the pneumatic
manifold to spin up one main engine, select radio frequencies via the
FMS CDU, initialize the INS - and on and on.....

Yes.

Of course, you wouldn't need to know all these things just to land the
airplane, particularly with help from an instructor on the ground. But you'd
need them to fly the aircraft competently, and you wouldn't learn them in a
Cessna. In any case, when it comes to landing the 747, a Cessna pilot
wouldn't really have any clear advantage over a non-pilot--the few things he
might know how to do would either be useless on a 747 or would be too trivial
to help without assistance.