Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

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.

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.

[Mixie has a way of mixing truisms that hardly need stating with
assertions that come from his apparent thinking that a computer
game gives him life experience, and with assertions that rely on
believing that a PC game is the equivalent of a large
professional flight simulator.]

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

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????????????????????????

writes:

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

Oo-wee-oo!

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.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:02:30 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

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.

"Often" is good enough for me.

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.

Nobody said otherwise.

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.

The last time I checked, the altimeter is quite important when flying
(and doubly so when landing!). The horizon is generally easily
recognized, typically to a first approximation a circle that's half blue
and half some other color. Important to know the plane's orientation,
both pitch and roll (while the compass gives you yaw, the third
rotational degree of freedom).