Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:26:18 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Hatunen writes:


Andalthough they no longer teach it, a PC
cannot simulate the quiet but scary feeling f being in a spin and
the slight panic as you try to bring it out of that spin.

Since they no longer teach it, doesn't that mean that there are no longer any
Real Pilots? How can you know anything about a spin without spinning in a
real aircraft?

Well, my instructor, who insisted on teaching spins to me
although no longer required for certification said there weren't
any more real pilots.

I guess you don't have to know how to recover from a spin if you
don't spin.

And the PC can not simulate the visual context of a real plane
where the instruments are spread out; you'd have to keep your
nose pretty close to the monitor to simulate this.

Actually, the PC can do this, with the right add-ons.

Like an add-on dual monitor? I fail to see how a PC can
realistically give the sensation of an instrument panel over two
feet across.

As to Mixie's apparent idea that somehow his PC is a good
emulation of a big-time simulator, where the cockpit layout is
very close to the appearance of the craft's real cockpit and
where the hydraulics on the simulator can create most of the
bumps and jerks of real flight, that is downright ludicrous.

I guess you haven't been flying or simming much recently. The cockpit layout
of the sim is realistic enough that you may not recognize it as a sim at first
glance. It's not difficult to display photo-realistic visuals, after all.

Unless your computer chair can bounce up and down and lean left
and right, it's not the same.

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

Hatunen writes:

Well, my instructor, who insisted on teaching spins to me
although no longer required for certification said there weren't
any more real pilots.

It's a judgment call. Spin practice is no longer required because more pilots
were dying from spins during training than were dying from spins during flight
thereafter. The cure was worse than the disease. So the emphasis was shifted
to avoiding spins, rather than recovering from them, at least for PPLs.

I guess you don't have to know how to recover from a spin if you
don't spin.

Exactly. It's safer to practice avoiding spins, but to only learn the theory
of spin recovery.

Like an add-on dual monitor?

No. Look up TrackIR.

I fail to see how a PC can
realistically give the sensation of an instrument panel over two
feet across.

See above.

Unless your computer chair can bounce up and down and lean left
and right, it's not the same.

As I've said, a lot of private pilots seem to give physical sensations
priority over everything else. But there's a lot more to flying than a
roller-coaster ride. I don't care much for the physical sensations myself,
although takeoff and landing are kind of pleasant if they are smooth.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Hatunen writes:

Well, my instructor, who insisted on teaching spins to me
although no longer required for certification said there weren't
any more real pilots.

It's a judgment call. Spin practice is no longer required

Wrong.

Spins are not required for private and below.

snip delusional babble about small, flat screens looking just like a real
airplane panel


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:

It's a judgment call. Spin practice is no longer required

Wrong.

Spins are not required for private and below.

Hmm.

I'm gradually learning to put people in the killfile. I just have to learn to
keep them there. With some people, giving them another chance is just a waste
of time.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 01:16:41 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Hatunen writes:

Well, my instructor, who insisted on teaching spins to me
although no longer required for certification said there weren't
any more real pilots.

It's a judgment call. Spin practice is no longer required because more pilots
were dying from spins during training than were dying from spins during flight
thereafter.

My goodness. That's a very specific claim. Do you have any
support for it?

The cure was worse than the disease. So the emphasis was shifted
to avoiding spins, rather than recovering from them, at least for PPLs.

I guess you don't have to know how to recover from a spin if you
don't spin.

Exactly. It's safer to practice avoiding spins, but to only learn the theory
of spin recovery.

Like an add-on dual monitor?

No. Look up TrackIR.

I fail to see how a PC can
realistically give the sensation of an instrument panel over two
feet across.

See above.

Unless your computer chair can bounce up and down and lean left
and right, it's not the same.

As I've said, a lot of private pilots seem to give physical sensations
priority over everything else.

Really? How many private pilots do you know well enough to make
that claim?

But there's a lot more to flying than a
roller-coaster ride.

Are you supposin' that I said otherwise?

I don't care much for the physical sensations myself,
although takeoff and landing are kind of pleasant if they are smooth.

If. I'm not particulary fond of hitting tubulence when I'm in an
airliner, but physical sensations are hard to avoid if you fly
much.

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

Hatunen writes:

Really? How many private pilots do you know well enough to make
that claim?

Quite a few.

If. I'm not particulary fond of hitting tubulence when I'm in an
airliner, but physical sensations are hard to avoid if you fly
much.

Sure, but they are not an integral part of flying, unless you fly specifically
for the thrill of sensations.

There are lots of YouTube videos of inexperienced, stupid pilots doing just
that. They don't always identify themselves, but eventually their names tend
to appear in NTSB reports.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:39:01 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Hatunen writes:

Really? How many private pilots do you know well enough to make
that claim?

Quite a few.

If. I'm not particulary fond of hitting tubulence when I'm in an
airliner, but physical sensations are hard to avoid if you fly
much.

Sure, but they are not an integral part of flying, unless you fly specifically

Good grief. That's an almost stupid thing to say.

for the thrill of sensations.

There are probably a few pilots who do things in the air for the
thrill of it. And there are some stunt pilots who do it for pay
or to win prizes. But as the old pilots' saw goes, "There are old
pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold
pilots."

But there are plenty of undesired sensations in flying even for
cautious pilots.

There are lots of YouTube videos of inexperienced, stupid pilots doing just
that.

How many? Two? Four? A dozen?

They don't always identify themselves, but eventually their names tend
to appear in NTSB reports.

You know this how? Are you psychic?

Although I admit, as I said above, thre are no old, bold pilots.

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

Hatunen writes:

Good grief. That's an almost stupid thing to say.

Not if you have an instrument rating.

There are probably a few pilots who do things in the air for the
thrill of it.

They are among the most at risk for accidents. Usually, they are inexperienced
(in part because they are more likely to kill themselves). However, there are
idiots with experience, too--see Pinnacle Airlines flight 3701.

But as the old pilots' saw goes, "There are old
pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold
pilots."

Yes. But there are many young and would-be bold pilots posting here. The kind
who would buy a Cirrus if they could afford it.

But there are plenty of undesired sensations in flying even for
cautious pilots.

Yes--that's one of the drawbacks of flying for real vs. flying a sim. I hate
having my ears pop, for example.

How many? Two? Four? A dozen?

By my count, perhaps several hundred.

You know this how? Are you psychic?

I know this from studies that show a link between this type of behavior and
accidents. It's not limited to airplanes, either: exactly the same tendencies
can be seen among automobile drivers.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:55:26 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Hatunen writes:

Good grief. That's an almost stupid thing to say.

Not if you have an instrument rating.

There are probably a few pilots who do things in the air for the
thrill of it.

They are among the most at risk for accidents.


Well, duh.

Usually, they are inexperienced
(in part because they are more likely to kill themselves). However, there are
idiots with experience, too--see Pinnacle Airlines flight 3701.

But as the old pilots' saw goes, "There are old
pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold
pilots."

Yes. But there are many young and would-be bold pilots posting here. The kind
who would buy a Cirrus if they could afford it.

Your point being? Please make it relevant to the general subject
and stop focusing your comments on a few fools. The occur in
almost every field of human endeavor.

But there are plenty of undesired sensations in flying even for
cautious pilots.

Yes--that's one of the drawbacks of flying for real vs. flying a sim. I hate
having my ears pop, for example.

If that's your only concern...

As at this point usual you left out the meat of the comment you
are referring to, where you said:

There are lots of YouTube videos of inexperienced, stupid pilots doing just
that.

How many? Two? Four? A dozen?

By my count, perhaps several hundred.

YOU COUNTED SEVERAL HUNDRED YOU-TUBES SHOWING "inexperienced,
stupid pilots"?? You must have a great deal of time on your
hands.

If those YouTube videos were like the video of the pilot
demosntrating a spin that you cited in another post, I am
hazarding a guess that even if you had seen that meny videos you
wouldn't know a reckless maneouver from a non reckless one,
making your opinion about worthless.

How about posting maybe a dozen such URLs and we can see for
ourselves what you consider "inexperienced, stupid pilots". (I'm
not arguing that "inexperienced, stupid pilots" don't exist. I do
hope you are at least clever enough to realize that.)

Again you kleft out what you said that is crucial to
understanding what follow:

They don't always identify themselves, but eventually their names tend
to appear in NTSB reports.

You know this how? Are you psychic?

I know this from studies that show a link between this type of behavior and
accidents.

Another duh. But what you haven't supported is your claim that
most of the several hundred pilots you've seen in YouTube videos
appear in NTSB reports. Given your apparent failure to know the
difference between reckless and non-reckless flying I'm dubious.

It's not limited to airplanes, either: exactly the same tendencies
can be seen among automobile drivers.

Another duh!

Not a particularly apt comparison, though. In America, at least,
drivers don't have ot pass much of a test to get licensed so some
real idiots get on the roads. There's a lot more to getting a
pilot's certification.

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

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Hatunen writes:

Good grief. That's an almost stupid thing to say.

Not if you have an instrument rating.

And now it is surely a stupid thing to say as flying IFR almost guarantees
other than a perfectly smooth ride.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.