Sad day for Mxsmanic

Herbert Paulis writes:

But, and that's the actual point, while I was busy keeping the bird on track
the FI who was acompanying the situation did actually push a whole lot of
switches which seemingly were necessary also to land safely. And once I got
her to the ground safely I was actually surprised how difficult it was to
keep her on the RWY during the landing run. Can someone with no or FS
experience only do it safely? From the experience I doubt it ...

Someone with FS experience would at least know what all that "whole lot of
switches" actually does.

In article ,
says...
Clark writes:

You hope it includes stopped. Not all autoland systems have auto-braking much
less automatic deployment of spoilers and thrust reversers.

The person flying the aircraft can be instructed on applying the brakes.

Dream on. You've never hand flown anything so how could you possibly know?

By reading and learning, something that many people never attempt.

Coming from you - that's one hell of an oxymoron.

--
Duncan

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Herbert Paulis writes:

But, and that's the actual point, while I was busy keeping the bird on
track
the FI who was acompanying the situation did actually push a whole lot of
switches which seemingly were necessary also to land safely. And once I
got
her to the ground safely I was actually surprised how difficult it was to
keep her on the RWY during the landing run. Can someone with no or FS
experience only do it safely? From the experience I doubt it ...

Someone with FS experience would at least know what all that "whole lot of
switches" actually does.


Bull****. Not even the G1000 in MSX is even close to complete.

schrieb:
So you are admitting that not ALL DOS applications will run today,
only "Well-behaved MS-DOS applications"?


and ya all keep feeding the idio^qtroll, not enough, you also start a
thread only for him.

and then folks jump in and wonder why the group is dying.

#m

a wrote:
Now, consider for a moment
those circumstances where both pilots were rendered unable to fly. The
most probable thing is probably some very serious physical accident in
the cockpit. It would not be 'neat', would it? The call would be for
someone who can fly a very likely crippled airplane, with no "stop-
reset-start" provision.

Maybe, maybe not. It could be from the in-flight beverages / snacks --
if they're shared at the front office. I never eat the peanuts on
Southwest, just so I can be standy in such an event. A few hours in
piston singles, eh that'll help.
T

Darkwing wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Herbert Paulis writes:

But, and that's the actual point, while I was busy keeping the bird on
track
the FI who was acompanying the situation did actually push a whole lot of
switches which seemingly were necessary also to land safely. And once I
got
her to the ground safely I was actually surprised how difficult it was to
keep her on the RWY during the landing run. Can someone with no or FS
experience only do it safely? From the experience I doubt it ...
Someone with FS experience would at least know what all that "whole lot of
switches" actually does.


Bull****. Not even the G1000 in MSX is even close to complete.


Come on. F1 - F12. How many more switches can there be on a A320?
T

On Feb 24, 12:27*pm, Tman wrote:
a wrote:

* Now, consider for a moment those circumstances where both pilots were rendered unable to fly. The
most probable thing is probably some very serious physical accident in
the cockpit. It would not be 'neat', would it? The call would be for
someone who can fly a very likely crippled airplane, with no "stop-
reset-start" provision.

Maybe, maybe not. *It could be from the in-flight beverages / snacks --
if they're shared at the front office. *I never eat the peanuts on
Southwest, just so I can be standy in such an event. *A few hours in
piston singles, eh that'll help.
T

You may want to consider having some of those olives that are
marinated in a clear fluid as a preflight prep if you are believing
not eating peanuts will help. That has to be way out on the likely
distribution curve.

Now, if I was in an airplane that was undergoing a dual pilot failure
and an overweight guy stood up and said "I am MX, and I'll take over"
I'd be wanting some of those olives myself.

I'm reminded of that old joke about a man collapsing and a woman
bending over to help, only to be pushed aside by a (MX-like) character
who said "stand back, I am trained as a first responder." She said
"Good, when you get to that part that says call a doctor, I'll be
right here."

On Feb 22, 8:28*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Mike Ash writes:
The bit in the article where he talks about a simmer being asked to land
a passenger plane after the pilots have been debilitated is pretty
funny. Absolutely no mention whatsoever of the difficulty or
improbability of actually pulling off such a feat. It is simply assumed
that it could be done.

It can easily be done.

Large commercial transports are heavily automated, and most flights are
conducted under computer control for most of their durations. *With the
automation in operation, no particular flying skill is required to keep the
aircraft flying, and since the automation can also land the aircraft, no
particularly flying skill is required for landing, either.

Because of this, any person of reasonable intelligence who can follow
instructions precisely can land an airliner, with help over the radio from a
pilot.

I teach glass cockpit training and I see very intelligent, experienced
pilots have lots of trouble working with the automation. In fact I
have *never* encountered a pilot who thought it was easier to fly with
the automation than to fly on old steam gauges.

-Robert, CFII

"Martin Hotze" wrote

and ya all keep feeding the idio^qtroll, not enough, you also start a
thread only for him.

and then folks jump in and wonder why the group is dying.

Amen. Small surprise, indeed.

But, they say he is entertaining. Sigh.
--
Jim in NC

In article
,
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

On Feb 22, 8:28*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Mike Ash writes:
The bit in the article where he talks about a simmer being asked to land
a passenger plane after the pilots have been debilitated is pretty
funny. Absolutely no mention whatsoever of the difficulty or
improbability of actually pulling off such a feat. It is simply assumed
that it could be done.

It can easily be done.

Large commercial transports are heavily automated, and most flights are
conducted under computer control for most of their durations. *With the
automation in operation, no particular flying skill is required to keep the
aircraft flying, and since the automation can also land the aircraft, no
particularly flying skill is required for landing, either.

Because of this, any person of reasonable intelligence who can follow
instructions precisely can land an airliner, with help over the radio from a
pilot.

I teach glass cockpit training and I see very intelligent, experienced
pilots have lots of trouble working with the automation. In fact I
have *never* encountered a pilot who thought it was easier to fly with
the automation than to fly on old steam gauges.

To be fair, that's a biased sample, as you're working with people who
already have flying skill, so naturally they'll find flying to be the
easy part. Somebody with a whole lot of experience with electronic
gadgets but little experience with flying may not have that same
experience. I'd expect a computer geek who has never touched real flight
controls to have an easier time following instructions on button-pushing
than control-handling, although he may well have a tough time of both,
and I still have little confidence in the ultimate outcome unless
somebody actually tries it and proves otherwise.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon