Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

Hatunen writes:

And all of those lowtime private pilots can spot a non-pilot who
thinks he knows-it-all from a computer game a mile away.

Since they are not important, what they do or don't spot is irrelevant. They
are just noise.

On Jun 23, 3:39*pm, Hatunen wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:31:05 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Virtually every pilot arguing about it here is a low-time private pilot. I can
spot them from a mile away.

DEFINE LOW TIME PILOT????????????????????????

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:31:05 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Wingnut writes:

Experience driving versus never having sat behind a wheel should make
some difference. It's plain old common sense!

It makes a difference

Thanks.

There will be some commonalities.

Very little in common, and much of it too dangerous to use. For example,
the 747 has flight controls, and so does the Cessna

And here we have the Cessna strawman again.

Virtually every pilot arguing about it here is a low-time private pilot.
I can spot them from a mile away. They're in the "danger zone" of
low-time pilots, where most accidents occur. Enough experience to feel
confident, but not enough experience to feel humble.

Orthogonal issue to the original discussion.

The results might be the same. The results for the pilot might actually
be worse if his experience encourages him to take risks that the
non-pilot would not (such as attempting to fly the aircraft by hand).

Do you honestly think someone with a *commercial* license won't typically
be well past that "not experienced enough to be humble" stage?

Except in your earlier, specific scenario of being talked through a
procedure from the ground, where anyone with basic comprehension skills
will probably do about as well.

The only viable scenario is one in which the pilot/non-pilot is given
instructions by a qualified third party.

In your ever-so-humble opinion perhaps.

Someone with piloting experience might more quickly be able to find and
recognize particular controls or instrument readouts though, and will
be able to understand a more compact jargon, so he may be a bit faster
though other than that only as good as the quality of the ground
instructions.

He might find the magnetic compass faster, and he'd recognize the yoke
and rudder pedals and throttles. Beyond that, nothing is really certain.

Er, horizon? Altimeter?

Wingnut writes:

Do you honestly think someone with a *commercial* license won't typically
be well past that "not experienced enough to be humble" stage?

Often, but not always. I've already mentioned Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701, a
shining example of incredibly stupid pilots who had CPLs.

And there are commercial pilots with far less experience than that. Need I
mention Colgan Air?

In your ever-so-humble opinion perhaps.

Without instruction, a non-pilot--or a pilot without experience in type--would
be in very hot water.

Er, horizon? Altimeter?

That's probably what he'd be asking himself. The AI had pretty colors that are
easy to spot, but the rest is not so obvious. He might spot the standby AI and
altimeter, but those aren't the instruments to watch.

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.

writes:

In a situation like that, what would be most important would be her ability
to stay calm, not panic and fly the airplane.

She'll need to be able to follow instructions to fly the airplane. Most people
won't panic in a situation like that, although they may be very anxious.

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.

When I look around at passengers in an airliner cabin, I usually don't see
anyone who even notices the noise of the gear retracting, and most ignore
turbulence as well unless it spills their drinks.

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.

Only a minority of people have a fear of flying, although it's a substantial
minority (around 14% according to some estimates, if I remember correctly).
The rest are non-pilots without fear.

My opinion is all the sensory inputs (of which those only "flying" sims
have no clue) ...

The sensory inputs are the same for pilots as they are for passengers.

... along with the the huge responsibility of flying an aircraft
full of other people would likely overwhelm the average non-pilot.

You greatly exaggerate the special character of flying. It doesn't scare
people that much (or at all), and they do not instantly panic when things go
wrong.

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.

Pilots are trained to take responsibility and fly the airplane themselves.
Taking instructions is secondary to that.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

In a situation like that, what would be most important would be her ability
to stay calm, not panic and fly the airplane.

She'll need to be able to follow instructions to fly the airplane. Most people
won't panic in a situation like that, although they may be very anxious.

Delusional.

Most average people would be scared ****less in such a situation and likely
panic at the first bump.

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.

When I look around at passengers in an airliner cabin, I usually don't see
anyone who even notices the noise of the gear retracting, and most ignore
turbulence as well unless it spills their drinks.

Delusional.

I've heard people shrieking in terror when a steeper than normal for an
airliner bank was made.

snip

The sensory inputs are the same for pilots as they are for passengers.

True, but irrelevant, as pilots are used to them but non-pilots aren't
and for them it is scary.

snip

Pilots are trained to take responsibility and fly the airplane themselves.
Taking instructions is secondary to that.

Babble.

Have you ever heard of a CFI or ATC?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Most average people would be scared ****less in such a situation and likely
panic at the first bump.

Actually, most people behave themselves quite well in emergencies. No panic,
and only moderate fear.

I've heard people shrieking in terror when a steeper than normal for an
airliner bank was made.

I have not.

True, but irrelevant, as pilots are used to them but non-pilots aren't
and for them it is scary.

The sensations in a typical jet transport are exceedingly tame, and do no
scare passengers. This is by design.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Most average people would be scared ****less in such a situation and likely
panic at the first bump.

Actually, most people behave themselves quite well in emergencies. No panic,
and only moderate fear.

Delusional.

I've heard people shrieking in terror when a steeper than normal for an
airliner bank was made.

I have not.

Since you admit you don't like to fly, that is hardly surprising.

True, but irrelevant, as pilots are used to them but non-pilots aren't
and for them it is scary.

The sensations in a typical jet transport are exceedingly tame, and do no
scare passengers. This is by design.

True when compared to most GA aircraft, but again irrelevant as it doesn't
take much to spook the average non-pilot.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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.