Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:21:38 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Wingnut writes:
"Often" is good enough for me.
It has not been good enough to prevent crashes.

Occasionally a company apparently insufficiently screens its employees to
keep out idiots. Nothing to do with what we were discussing.

Important to know the plane's orientation, both pitch and roll (while
the compass gives you yaw, the third rotational degree of freedom).

It's also important to know the current stall angle, the angle of
attack, the flight path vector, the airspeed and altitude trends, the
V-speeds, the upper and lower airspeed limits, the current track, the
current route, the current vertical profile, the current heading, the
expected top of descent, and about a zillion other things that a private
pilot isn't likely to see in a tiny Cessna.

And there goes the Cessna strawman again. When, exactly, did the subject
morph from being a commercial pilot to being a private pilot, by the way?

Wingnut writes:

And there goes the Cessna strawman again. When, exactly, did the subject
morph from being a commercial pilot to being a private pilot, by the way?

Commercial pilots fly Cessnas all the time, including the small ones.

The only difference between a private pilot and a commercial pilot is that the
commercial pilot can fly for hire. Apparently there is some widespread
misconception that all commercial pilots are flying airliners, but that is not
at all the case.

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:21:10 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Wingnut writes:

And there goes the Cessna strawman again. When, exactly, did the
subject morph from being a commercial pilot to being a private pilot,
by the way?

Commercial pilots fly Cessnas all the time, including the small ones.

Nobody said they don't; just that their experience tends to be broader
than *just* Cessnas.

Wingnut writes:

Nobody said they don't; just that their experience tends to be broader
than *just* Cessnas.

That can be said of private pilots as well.

On Jun 28, 7:44*am, Wingnut wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:21:10 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
Wingnut writes:

And there goes the Cessna strawman again. When, exactly, did the
subject morph from being a commercial pilot to being a private pilot,
by the way?

Commercial pilots fly Cessnas all the time, including the small ones.

Nobody said they don't; just that their experience tends to be broader
than *just* Cessnas.

Well, a commercial certificate means the holder has demonstrated a
different level of piloting proficiency, passed a different written
and is required to hold a different physical certificate. Not that
private pilots can't be as proficient, but they are not required to
be. Most would agree the instrument rating is more difficult to get
than the commercial license, so long as the pilot can pass the
physical. I needed a waiver for the physical (vision).

My airplane is a business (ie point to point travel) tool, I simply
don't need more than a private pilot certificate since neither the
ariplane nor I are for hire.


Cessna strawmen and annoying pilots are MX's strong points. It's been
pretty clear for a long time he doesn't have much of a real life,
spends lots of time in sim and offering his 'wisdom' here.

On Jun 28, 5:21*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
. Apparently there is some widespread
misconception that all commercial pilots are flying airliners, but that is not
at all the case.

NO, IT's YOUR MISCONCEPTION.

The real world knows the difference between commercial pilot and ATP.

On Jun 28, 5:39*am, Wingnut wrote:


And there goes the Cessna strawman again. When, exactly, did the subject
morph from being a commercial pilot to being a private pilot, by the way?

Don't know why all the fuss about "Cessna
strawmen". :-)))))))))))))))))

First of all, the lady in question herself during a televised news
interview said quite plainly that her "commercial experience" was
limited to light aircraft and Cessna was mentioned. Secondly, there
are literally thousands of pilots certificated as commercial pilots in
the United States who have never flown anything more complicated than
a light complex.
I personally know many of these pilots myself. One is a commercial ag
operator who has been dusting crops for 30 years and has never flown
anything heavier than a 182 Cessna. He makes a good living flying a
Pawnee. I know another who runs a banner towing business and flies
Citabrias. MANY I know are CFI's in light aircraft holding commercial
ratings.
You can add to this literally thousands of pilots in the United States
who own light aircraft, many not even complex aircraft, who have
obtained commercials simply for the added education involved.
The lady said she had a commercial and said her experience was limited
to light aircraft. I find absolutely nothing inconsistent with her
comment whatsoever. The inference by ANYONE that her having a
commercial rating indicates she has had experience in heavier aircraft
than those she mentioned is totally flawed in my opinion.
Dudley Henriques

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:13:28 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:

On Jun 28, 5:39Â*am, Wingnut wrote:


And there goes the Cessna strawman again. When, exactly, did the
subject morph from being a commercial pilot to being a private pilot,
by the way?

Don't know why all the fuss about "Cessna strawmen". :-)))))))))))))))))

First of all, the lady in question herself during a televised news
interview said quite plainly that her "commercial experience" was
limited to light aircraft and Cessna was mentioned.

does not say anything like that; it only
says she has a commercial pilot's license, with no further detail. Since
that is the post that we are debating here, as far as I am concerned
everyone bringing up Cessnas is pulling them directly out of their ass.

Our givens are solely that she has a commercial pilot's license and was
able to successfully assume the copilot's role during the landing of a
jumbo jet. Assuming anything beyond that, either negative or positive,
seems unwarranted. This "televised news interview" has not been entered
into evidence, unlike the content of the original post
, so you are assuming facts not in evidence
as part of your efforts, in partnership with Mxsmanic, to denigrate me.
Assuming facts not in evidence is, of course, an illicit debating move.

Secondly, there are literally thousands of pilots certificated as
commercial pilots in the United States who have never flown anything
more complicated than a light complex.

This claim *might* have been more credible had it come from someone who
could spell "certified" correctly. In the meantime, the important matter
here is not the absolute number but the percentage, about which no claim
has yet been made by you.

I personally know many of these pilots myself.

Personal anecdotes are a notoriously poor substitute for actual evidence.
Small, uncontrolled, biased samples are the bane of every statistician.

One is a commercial ag operator who has been dusting crops for 30 years
and has never flown anything heavier than a 182 Cessna.

Aside from the time he flew an FA-18 straight up into the nozzle of an
alien superweapon, of course.

Sorry, fictional characters make particularly poor evidence. :-)

totally flawed in my opinion. Dudley Henriques

Yes, your opinion of me is unfortunately quite clear to all, as is the
fact that you're the type of person to air such opinions, about people
who have done nothing offensive to you to provoke you, in public. You
should grow like an onion with your head in the ground.

On Jun 29, 12:34*am, Wingnut wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:13:28 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
On Jun 28, 5:39*am, Wingnut wrote:

And there goes the Cessna strawman again. When, exactly, did the
subject morph from being a commercial pilot to being a private pilot,
by the way?

Don't know why all the fuss about "Cessna strawmen". :-)))))))))))))))))

First of all, the lady in question herself during a televised news
interview said quite plainly that her "commercial experience" was
limited to light aircraft and Cessna was mentioned.

does not say anything like that; it only
says she has a commercial pilot's license, with no further detail. Since
that is the post that we are debating here, as far as I am concerned
everyone bringing up Cessnas is pulling them directly out of their ass.

Our givens are solely that she has a commercial pilot's license and was
able to successfully assume the copilot's role during the landing of a
jumbo jet. Assuming anything beyond that, either negative or positive,
seems unwarranted. This "televised news interview" has not been entered
into evidence, unlike the content of the original post
, so you are assuming facts not in evidence
as part of your efforts, in partnership with Mxsmanic, to denigrate me.
Assuming facts not in evidence is, of course, an illicit debating move.

Secondly, there are literally thousands of pilots certificated as
commercial pilots in the United States who have never flown anything
more complicated than a light complex.

This claim *might* have been more credible had it come from someone who
could spell "certified" correctly. In the meantime, the important matter
here is not the absolute number but the percentage, about which no claim
has yet been made by you.

I personally know many of these pilots myself.

Personal anecdotes are a notoriously poor substitute for actual evidence.
Small, uncontrolled, biased samples are the bane of every statistician.

One is a commercial ag operator who has been dusting crops for 30 years
and has never flown anything heavier than a 182 Cessna.

Aside from the time he flew an FA-18 straight up into the nozzle of an
alien superweapon, of course.

Sorry, fictional characters make particularly poor evidence. :-)

totally flawed in my opinion. Dudley Henriques

Yes, your opinion of me is unfortunately quite clear to all, as is the
fact that you're the type of person to air such opinions, about people
who have done nothing offensive to you to provoke you, in public. You
should grow like an onion with your head in the ground.

I have no opinion of you at all really. You simply come with Usenet.
No problem at all. You have as much right to an opinion here as anyone
here. :-))))))))
Dudley Henriques

Wingnut writes:

does not say anything like that; it only
says she has a commercial pilot's license, with no further detail. Since
that is the post that we are debating here, as far as I am concerned
everyone bringing up Cessnas is pulling them directly out of their ass.

Patti DeLuna herself indicated that she only had about 300 hours of
experience, and has only flown small Cessna aircraft (specifically, a Cessna
210).

Our givens are solely that she has a commercial pilot's license and was
able to successfully assume the copilot's role during the landing of a
jumbo jet.

She did not "assume the copilot's role," an assertion that many first officers
might resent. She merely sat in the copilot's seat and followed the pilot's
instructions.

... as part of your efforts, in partnership with Mxsmanic, to denigrate me.

Nobody is in partnership with me.

Assuming facts not in evidence is, of course, an illicit debating move.

Looking things up, on the other hand, is pretty effective.

This claim *might* have been more credible had it come from someone who
could spell "certified" correctly.

"Certificate" is a real word. It is slightly different in meaning from
"certify." To certify means to attest to something. To certificate means to
issue a certification. However, the FAA and others use certificate mainly
because it contains more syllables and therefore sounds more important.

In the meantime, the important matter
here is not the absolute number but the percentage, about which no claim
has yet been made by you.

The majority of commercial pilots fly little planes. Remember that airline
pilots generally hold airline transport pilot certifications, which are not
the same as commercial licenses.

Personal anecdotes are a notoriously poor substitute for actual evidence.

But research goes a long way, and so does an understanding of how the FAA
certifies pilots.

Yes, your opinion of me is unfortunately quite clear to all, as is the
fact that you're the type of person to air such opinions, about people
who have done nothing offensive to you to provoke you, in public. You
should grow like an onion with your head in the ground.

Why not discuss the topic, instead of other people?