Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

Hatunen writes:

Your point being?

My point being that they often have very little clue.

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.

Most of the posts in the thread are being made by a few fools. Perhaps if they
went away, the thread would be more interesting. But I'm not holding my
breath. Several of the fools find me intimidating and try to bolster their
self-confidence by engaging me.

If that's your only concern...

It's not. There are other reasons to prefer simulation--such as the fact that
I absolutely despise travel, and that's difficult to avoid when flying for
real.

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

Sometimes I do, yes. And I'm interested in aviation. The stupid pilots fill
page after page on YouTube.

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.

Using a non-aerobatic aircraft for aerobatics is always reckless in my book.
Other people have lower safety thresholds.

How about posting maybe a dozen such URLs and we can see for
ourselves what you consider "inexperienced, stupid pilots".

Just look for pilots doing aerobatics in their little Cessnas.

And of course only a fraction of careless and reckless pilots record their
mistakes on video.

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.

That isn't my claim.

Given your apparent failure to know the
difference between reckless and non-reckless flying I'm dubious.

The pilots in NTSB reports often don't know the difference, but I do.

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.

Actually, not much more, if it's just a PPL. That's why there are so many
stupid pilots, who disproportionately represent those who kill themselves 'and
sometimes others) in airplanes.

writes:

Ever hear of SLOW FLIGHT????????????

Be it slow flight or fast flight, you don't wait until something goes wrong to
react. Do not assume that all aircraft will be as forgiving of mistakes as
some tiny airplanes are.

LANDING IS NOT IFR NOR WAS I TALKING ABOUT FLYING IN IMC.

As I recall, you've talked about it before, in terms that worried me.

YOU DON'T EXPERIENCE WINDSHEAR IN MSFS,

Actually, I think you can, with add-ons like ActiveSky, but I don't recall
experiencing it.

DO YOU where suddenly your controls get mushy??????????

I never reach a point where the controls get mushy except for occasional
academic experiments. I'd never allow that to happen in normal flight. I want
fat safety margins around my flight regime.

There are many reasons for flight that require you to NOT look at your
instruments but fly by the seat of your pants. Example would be
photography, search and rescue.

I don't do photography or S&R. All you really need to see visually is traffic,
and you don't need to fly by the seat of your pants at all (and you cannot,
under IFR).

SO, NO I AM NOT BEHIND THE PLANE.

Well, certainly if you scream it out, it must be so, eh?

writes:

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

Oo-wee-oo!

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 23:55:58 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Hatunen writes:

Again you display your actual lack of knowledge and willingness
to display it in public. First, there is no FAR prohibiting the
demonstration or practice of doing spins.

Spins must be permitted for the aircraft, and regulations permit them (and
other aerobatic maneuvers) only under certain conditions.

Plese cite the FAR.

Of course an aircraft has to be rated for a spin. But depending
on context, what that means is than many airplanes aimply cannot
be spun with a safe recover. This is true of most military
fighter jets. In this case it would be more accurate to say that
one should not spin in an aircraft from which rcovery is
impossible.

So I'd be fascinated to read the actual wording of the FAR you
refer to.

In this case, the
Cessna 150 may be spun only after certain modifications are made (since 2009),
in part to prevent maximum rudder travel from interfering with the elevators.

Well, OK. I have spun in a 150 many years ago, but this injuction
is not rally an injuction against spinning but ratehr a rather
bad design flaw that onley appera when spinning (I presume).

Yes, I have the AD in front of me.

I have no reaosn to doubt you on this one.

However, the video was uploaded in 2007, and the aircraft has a Canadian
registration number, so this might not apply to the pilot in question.

In view of hte fact you've already said spinning in a 150 was
enjoined in 2009, it soesn't apper to me to matter whether the
spin was in the USA or Canada.

There's still the question of reckless and careless operation, but if he was
in Canada, that might not apply.

In this case it would only be reckless had the pilot been made
aware of the design flaw. Spins are not intrinsicly reckless.

In general, one must question the wisdom of a
pilot who executes aerobatic maneuvers in an aircraft not designed for that
purpose.

As I pointed out, there are aircraft designed such that they
cannot recover from a spin and it would be stupid to attempt a
spin in such an aircraft. And you note there is a specific
aircraft, the 150, that has a design flaw that can lead to
trouble in a spin (but not inevitably as my presence here is
proof of). While not necessarily stupid, it would be rather
ill-advised in a 150.

Here again, this has parallels in the world of automobiles:
executing
extreme maneuvers in an automobile not designed for such maneuvers is reckless
and careless.

Duh.

But aircraft are not designed specifically to spin (save certain
planes designed for aerobatic use). The normal structural
integrity of a plane will allow it to spin in a quite
well-behaved manner, and the warning is really about aircraft
that shouldn't be spun.

I've been too long out of the game to remember if there is a
certification plate in aircraft that says "OK for spin" or "Do
not spin".

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

I have flown in airplanes many times. The sensations felt by pilots are
identical to those felt by passengers.

How could you possibly know that as you have never ever flown any aircraft?
--
JohnT

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 23:59:04 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Hatunen writes:

Indeed. That goes without saying. Theme parks are full of them.

Yes. It's a risky personality trait for people who operate vehicles. A
tremendous number of automobile accidents can be traced to this trait. And it
is often said that the most common last words of private pilots are "Watch
this!"

REally. That's their last words? Who reported this fact? The
passneger he was shoing off to? I would have though the last
words would be something more like "AAW ****!!!".

Except the pilots have to deal with it and aren't allowed to
cower in their sets.

I have never seen anyone cowering in his seat during a flight. The sensations
are exceedingly tame.

You obviously haven't been on some flights I've been on.

Of course it goes without saying that there are a number of
sensations that one can have when when piloting a plane smaller
than a 707 that airline passengers rarely experience, and when
they do it tends to be one of their last sensations.

"Watch this!"

Since your actual flying experience consists of being a passenger
on on large airliners it would serve you well to restrict your
comments to that experience.

Why?

I know that small planes move around more. It's one of several reasons to
avoid traveling in small planes.

As a passenger, I agree wholeheartedly. Give me a good old jumbo
any day.

By the way I've been a passenger on some smaller aircraft with
maybe ten or eleven seats, and the sensations are quite a bit
different than when a passenger on a 747.

So have I. I didn't find the sensations so very different as long as the
aircraft is competently flown.

Again, I suspect you haven't been on some of the routes I've been
on in small planes.

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

In rec.aviation.piloting Hatunen wrote:

I've been too long out of the game to remember if there is a
certification plate in aircraft that says "OK for spin" or "Do
not spin".

The plate gives the certification and any prohibitions.

That which is not prohibited is allowed.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Hatunen writes:

Plese cite the FAR.

A partial sample:

14 CFR § 91.303 Aerobatic flight
14 CFR § 23.3 Airplane categories (a) and (b)
14 CFR § 23.1567 Flight maneuver placard (b) and (d)
14 CFR § 23.151 Acrobatic maneuvers
14 CFR § 23.221 Spinning
14 CFR § 23.807 Emergency exits (b)

Well, OK. I have spun in a 150 many years ago, but this injuction
is not rally an injuction against spinning but ratehr a rather
bad design flaw that onley appera when spinning (I presume).

Either way, it's not legal to spin a 150 without the modifications mentioned
in the AD.

Also, the pilot spent too many turns in the spin (I counted nine), and in fact
it looked a lot like a spiral (increasing airspeed).

In view of hte fact you've already said spinning in a 150 was
enjoined in 2009, it soesn't apper to me to matter whether the
spin was in the USA or Canada.

The AD wouldn't necessarily apply in Canada (I don't know the Canadian
regulations).

In this case it would only be reckless had the pilot been made
aware of the design flaw. Spins are not intrinsicly reckless.

They are after nine turns.

But aircraft are not designed specifically to spin (save certain
planes designed for aerobatic use). The normal structural
integrity of a plane will allow it to spin in a quite
well-behaved manner, and the warning is really about aircraft
that shouldn't be spun.

Spins may be safe, but only within certain limits. It's up to the pilot to
respect those limits.

I've been too long out of the game to remember if there is a
certification plate in aircraft that says "OK for spin" or "Do
not spin".

The regulations mentioned above spell out what must be on the placards. I
didn't see those placards in the cockpit on the video, and yet some of them
are required for aircraft that can be spun.

Mxsmanic wrote:

I never reach a point where the controls get mushy except for occasional
academic experiments. I'd never allow that to happen in normal flight. I want
fat safety margins around my flight regime.

Unless your PC has controls with active feedback, all you will ever feel
is the spring tension.

It is impossible for any of the consumer grade PC stuff to ever feel mushy.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Hatunen writes:

REally. That's their last words?

Well, it's a saying, not a finding of fact. It illustrates a point, namely,
that thrillseeking behavior is incompatible with safe, normal flight.

I would have though the last
words would be something more like "AAW ****!!!".

Yes, this is supported by the data, along with things like "Uh-oh" or "Amy, I
love you."

You obviously haven't been on some flights I've been on.

I fly only with safe, major carriers if I can.

Again, I suspect you haven't been on some of the routes I've been
on in small planes.

Turbulence is one thing. Pilot incompetence is another.