Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

On Jun 21, 4:08*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

As I've said, I discuss aviation in all sorts of venues, not just on USENET.

So pray tell, share with us your so called sources since you are not a
pilot, not a CGI and pretend to be something you are not?

Or are they also simulated discussions with sources like MSFS?

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:45:01 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

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

Ah, the Cessna 152 strawman again. I was wondering when that would show
up. First sentence of non-quoted text as it just so happens -- which
means one of my co-workers owes me ten bucks. :-)

Just as experience in driving a Yugo doesn't necessarily help in
driving a Formula 1 car.

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

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.

There will be some commonalities. Zero experience in a plane will make
you worse than having had some experience. I don't claim you'd be
proficient; just that you wouldn't actually be *less* capable than
someone who knew *nothing*. Again, common sense.

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.

First of all, we weren't talking "pilots of small private aircraft", at
least not until you came along and introduced that particular strawman.

Second, they may not be able to do a good job, but the total non-pilot
will surely do a worse job.

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. (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.)

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.

Someone who says that "the less experience a person has at a skilled
task, the poorer their odds of completing it successfully" is
"uninformed"? In what universe? In the one where I live there is this
thing called a "learning curve". It climbs steeply at first, then bends
over, but it's monotonic increasing, and it indicates task performance as
a function of experience. Performance improves with experience, slowing
down and eventually plateauing. For some things (e.g. Tic-Tac-Toe) it
plateaus fast and low; for others (e.g. chess) it plateaus much more
slowly and higher, because the thing being learned is more complicated.
But it does not actually dip down at any point.

Since this basic fact (learning curves are monotonic increasing) is
disputed by you, I'm forced to conclude that you're insane and thus not
really worth debating with any further.

On Jun 22, 9:45*pm, Wingnut wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:45:01 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
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

Ah, the Cessna 152 strawman again. I was wondering when that would show
up. First sentence of non-quoted text as it just so happens -- which
means one of my co-workers owes me ten bucks. :-)

Just as experience in driving a Yugo doesn't necessarily help in
driving a Formula 1 car.

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

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.

There will be some commonalities. Zero experience in a plane will make
you worse than having had some experience. I don't claim you'd be
proficient; just that you wouldn't actually be *less* capable than
someone who knew *nothing*. Again, common sense.

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.

First of all, we weren't talking "pilots of small private aircraft", at
least not until you came along and introduced that particular strawman.

Second, they may not be able to do a good job, but the total non-pilot
will surely do a worse job.

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. (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.)

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.

Someone who says that "the less experience a person has at a skilled
task, the poorer their odds of completing it successfully" is
"uninformed"? In what universe? In the one where I live there is this
thing called a "learning curve". It climbs steeply at first, then bends
over, but it's monotonic increasing, and it indicates task performance as
a function of experience. Performance improves with experience, slowing
down and eventually plateauing. For some things (e.g. Tic-Tac-Toe) it
plateaus fast and low; for others (e.g. chess) it plateaus much more
slowly and higher, because the thing being learned is more complicated.
But it does not actually dip down at any point.

Since this basic fact (learning curves are monotonic increasing) is
disputed by you, I'm forced to conclude that you're insane and thus not
really worth debating with any further.

Wingnut, I'm going to have to call you on your statement that learning
curves are monotonically increasing activities.

1) I have employees whose 10 years of experience can be characterized
as 1 year repeated 10 times. (That's OK depending on their job of
course.)
2) There are some who have posted here thousands of times and seem to
have learned nothing.
3) There are some here who even after repeated experiences have not
yet learned engaging others in the 'reality vs sim' experience doesn't
add value to the thread.

The major reason a non-certificate holder is one of the most frequent
posters here is because others of us, including me, took part in the
non-learning experience of engaging him on a topic.

It would appear MX's major recreation is sim and engaging in these
debates,other of his posts suggest he doesn't have much of a life
elsewhere. We've all seen literate failures at real life, he is most
likely in that class. Too many of us contribute to his recreation at
the expense of RAP (although these threads are better than the ****ing
contests others seem to enjoy). He is simply a non-pilot who enjoys
yanking on pilot's chains and does that fairly successfully.

You should note that when you simply reply to him, you postings are
also sent to other groups.

On Jun 23, 4:14*am, a wrote:

You should note that when you simply reply to him, you postings are
also sent to other groups.- Hide quoted text -

Interesting and has me puzzled. All the threads I been participating
I thought has only been going back to rec.aviation.piloting. I see
what you are talking about though on certain threads???

Since we haven't seen new names pop up on the radar in this group his
trolling doesn't appear to be too effective in the other groups.

On Jun 23, 8:29*am, " wrote:
On Jun 23, 4:14*am, a wrote:

You should note that when you simply reply to him, you postings are
also sent to other groups.- Hide quoted text -

Interesting and has me puzzled. *All the threads I been participating
I thought has only been going back to rec.aviation.piloting. *I see
what you are talking about though on certain threads???

Since we haven't seen new names pop up on the radar in this group his
trolling doesn't appear to be too effective in the other groups.

I'm using a Google group reader for this account, and when I click
reply the newsgroups being posted to appear in the newsgroup field.
Sometimes I forget to limit my responses to this group.

The OP was addressed to several news groups that would have found the
topic interesting, I have no complaint with that. Someone a long time
ago pointed out some of my comments were being cross posted, I
appreciated the head's up. Spammers like lots of groups, I don't want
to be a member of that tribe, either by cross posting or by content.
My 'content' speaks for itself, the cross posting is accidental.

On Jun 23, 9:32*am, a wrote:

The OP was addressed to several news groups that would have found the
topic interesting,

I'm using Google groups so I can fully understand but I doubt that
rec.travel.air, rec.arts.movies.past-films, rec.arts.tv,
alt.gossip.celebrities would have been interested in this
discussion.

But then again, different threads may be xposted to different groups,
dunno. I just happened to pick one sub thread to extract the above
and the subthreads I have been participating in has only been to here.

Spammers like lots of groups, I don't want
to be a member of that tribe, either by cross posting or by content.
My 'content' speaks for itself, the cross posting is accidental.

Same here.....

a writes:

Too many of us contribute to his recreation at
the expense of RAP (although these threads are better than the ****ing
contests others seem to enjoy). He is simply a non-pilot who enjoys
yanking on pilot's chains and does that fairly successfully.

I like to talk about aviation. Unfortunately, a small but vocal group of
people of high emotional tension and low intelligence will direct any
interaction with me towards a discussion of me personally (their bogeyman),
instead of discussing the original topic. And others, who might be interested
in discussing aviation, simply don't participate at all, which doesn't leave
many options other than the village idiots.

There are a few venues in which I'm able to sustain an intelligent discussion
of aviation without any reference to personalities at all, but in most venues
the angry young males are such a pox upon discussion that they eventually
overwhelm it.

It is interesting to note that sometimes the stupid ones (and the smart ones)
are not where or who you'd expect them to be.

Mxsmanic wrote:

There are a few venues in which I'm able to sustain an intelligent discussion
of aviation without any reference to personalities at all, but in most venues
the angry young males are such a pox upon discussion that they eventually
overwhelm it.

See:

http://www.positivityblog.com/index....powerful-tips/

The average age here is well past "young".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article ,
says...



I like to talk about aviation. Unfortunately, a small but vocal group of
people of high emotional tension and low intelligence will direct any
interaction with me towards a discussion of me personally (their bogeyman),
instead of discussing the original topic. And others, who might be interested
in discussing aviation, simply don't participate at all, which doesn't leave
many options other than the village idiots.


Isn't that just unfair life for you? You show up as a fake, hoax charlatan,
trying to tell people who know what they're talking about the ins and outs of
their business, and they call you on it and put a "pox" on your game. Many of
the "young, testosterone-soaked males" you decry are actually much older than
yourself, and some are female, as you have repeatedly failed to notice. What
separates them from you, far removed from the simplistic justification you use
to console your own ego, is that they have a clue of what they are talking
about.

Certainly it never occurred to you to wonder why this injustice happens to you
almost everywhere you go.

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, but not necessarily a useful difference.

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--but a Cessna pilot who
actually attempts to fly the 747 by hand will obtain even worse results than
he would if he simply stayed with the automation.

I don't claim you'd be proficient; just that you wouldn't actually
be *less* capable than someone who knew *nothing*.

You would not be less capable, but you would not necessarily be more capable
in any practical sense.

First of all, we weren't talking "pilots of small private aircraft", at
least not until you came along and introduced that particular strawman.

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.

Second, they may not be able to do a good job, but the total non-pilot
will surely do a worse job.

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).

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. It is unlikely that a non-pilot or a
pilot without experience in type would know enough to land entirely on his
own, without instructions.

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. The real
risk is that he might think he knows more than he does, which means he might
do risky things that the non-pilot would not.

Someone who says that "the less experience a person has at a skilled
task, the poorer their odds of completing it successfully" is
"uninformed"? In what universe? In the one where I live there is this
thing called a "learning curve". It climbs steeply at first, then bends
over, but it's monotonic increasing, and it indicates task performance as
a function of experience. Performance improves with experience, slowing
down and eventually plateauing. For some things (e.g. Tic-Tac-Toe) it
plateaus fast and low; for others (e.g. chess) it plateaus much more
slowly and higher, because the thing being learned is more complicated.
But it does not actually dip down at any point.

The accident rate for non-pilots is zero, because they do not fly. The
accident rate for pilots with thousands of hours of experience is very low,
becaue they've been flying for a very long time. The accident rate for pilots
with only a limited number of hours is very high, because they gain confidence
before they gain competence. A low-time private Cessna pilot is thus in a
dangerous zone (and most pilots of small Cessnas are also low-time pilots),
and he has experience that is irrelevant in many ways to that required to fly
a 747. He is thus at considerable risk.