If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Strange landing at SJC
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
... Mxsmanic wrote in : Mike writes: The number of passes they make depends on what type of ILS it is and what check they are doing. I've seen them take several hours to do a CAT III ILS. For a typical CAT I ILS they will check it once per year making about 3 approaches and an arc. Every other year they will do a more extensive check. The equipment is also checked extensively on the ground at regular intervals. How do they fly the plane with sufficient precision to make the check valid? Or do they use methods that are independent of the precision of the aircraft's movements (if so, what are they?)? What's it to you? You don't fly. Bertie I remember sitting at a meeting at RTCA, the same people who determine how your avionics work, and we were having an ergonomics discussion and some really strange issues were popping up. So I asked the question of the 20 or so people around the table...how many of you people fly? You know what? I was the only one. Scary isn't it. -- Regards, BobF. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Strange landing at SJC
"Bob F." wrote in
: "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ... Mxsmanic wrote in : Mike writes: The number of passes they make depends on what type of ILS it is and what check they are doing. I've seen them take several hours to do a CAT III ILS. For a typical CAT I ILS they will check it once per year making about 3 approaches and an arc. Every other year they will do a more extensive check. The equipment is also checked extensively on the ground at regular intervals. How do they fly the plane with sufficient precision to make the check valid? Or do they use methods that are independent of the precision of the aircraft's movements (if so, what are they?)? What's it to you? You don't fly. Bertie I remember sitting at a meeting at RTCA, the same people who determine how your avionics work, and we were having an ergonomics discussion and some really strange issues were popping up. So I asked the question of the 20 or so people around the table...how many of you people fly? You know what? I was the only one. Scary isn't it. That is a bit scary. Not too surprising now I think about it though. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Strange landing at SJC
Bob F. writes:
I remember sitting at a meeting at RTCA, the same people who determine how your avionics work, and we were having an ergonomics discussion and some really strange issues were popping up. So I asked the question of the 20 or so people around the table...how many of you people fly? You know what? I was the only one. Scary isn't it. Should it be? Ergonomics is a study in itself and largely independent of the situation to which the study is applied. Pilots are human beings like anyone else and their human reactions to specific types of external stimuli are identical to those of anyone else, so general principles of ergonomy can be applied to a cockpit without necessarily having any experience therein. The important thing for these people to understand is how human beings and machines interact, not the specific purpose of the interaction. Or course, knowing a little bit about the patterns of interaction can't hurt, but they don't have to be pilots for that (they can just put pilots in a sim and ask them what they think). Many people use computers all day, and they suffer fatigue from the poor ergonomy of their work environment, but their long experience with computers does not help them to resolve the problems with ergonomy, and they may not even be aware of them. A specialist, however, might immediately recognize the problems just by watching a person use the computer, and need not have any experience using a computer herself. Similarly, engine mechanics need not be pilots, and pilots need not be mechanics, at least in theory. Small aircraft require a lot more knowledge of engines than they really should, though, thanks to the ancient designs of the powerplants. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Strange landing at SJC
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
... Bob F. writes: I remember sitting at a meeting at RTCA, the same people who determine how your avionics work, and we were having an ergonomics discussion and some really strange issues were popping up. So I asked the question of the 20 or so people around the table...how many of you people fly? You know what? I was the only one. Scary isn't it. Should it be? Ergonomics is a study in itself and largely independent of the situation to which the study is applied. Pilots are human beings like anyone else and their human reactions to specific types of external stimuli are identical to those of anyone else, so general principles of ergonomy can be applied to a cockpit without necessarily having any experience therein. The important thing for these people to understand is how human beings and machines interact, not the specific purpose of the interaction. Or course, knowing a little bit about the patterns of interaction can't hurt, but they don't have to be pilots for that (they can just put pilots in a sim and ask them what they think). Many people use computers all day, and they suffer fatigue from the poor ergonomy of their work environment, but their long experience with computers does not help them to resolve the problems with ergonomy, and they may not even be aware of them. A specialist, however, might immediately recognize the problems just by watching a person use the computer, and need not have any experience using a computer herself. Similarly, engine mechanics need not be pilots, and pilots need not be mechanics, at least in theory. Small aircraft require a lot more knowledge of engines than they really should, though, thanks to the ancient designs of the powerplants. It was a rhetorical question without a lot of detail. And you answered it without fully understanding the problem, just like any Senior Executive, Politician or 12 year old. Absolutely correct, obvious, and useless to anyone trying to get the job done. ...with no disrespect. And you included in your answer using far more words than I did, that the underlying problem was that no one offered experience example. -- Regards, BobF. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Strange landing at SJC
On Aug 27, 8:47 am, "Bob F." wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... Bob F. writes: I remember sitting at a meeting at RTCA, the same people who determine how your avionics work, and we were having an ergonomics discussion and some really strange issues were popping up. So I asked the question of the 20 or so people around the table...how many of you people fly? You know what? I was the only one. Scary isn't it. Should it be? Ergonomics is a study in itself and largely independent of the situation to which the study is applied. Pilots are human beings like anyone else and their human reactions to specific types of external stimuli are identical to those of anyone else, so general principles of ergonomy can be applied to a cockpit without necessarily having any experience therein. The important thing for these people to understand is how human beings and machines interact, not the specific purpose of the interaction. Or course, knowing a little bit about the patterns of interaction can't hurt, but they don't have to be pilots for that (they can just put pilots in a sim and ask them what they think). Many people use computers all day, and they suffer fatigue from the poor ergonomy of their work environment, but their long experience with computers does not help them to resolve the problems with ergonomy, and they may not even be aware of them. A specialist, however, might immediately recognize the problems just by watching a person use the computer, and need not have any experience using a computer herself. Similarly, engine mechanics need not be pilots, and pilots need not be mechanics, at least in theory. Small aircraft require a lot more knowledge of engines than they really should, though, thanks to the ancient designs of the powerplants. It was a rhetorical question without a lot of detail. And you answered it without fully understanding the problem, just like any Senior Executive, Politician or 12 year old. Absolutely correct, obvious, and useless to anyone trying to get the job done. ...with no disrespect. And you included in your answer using far more words than I did, that the underlying problem was that no one offered experience example. -- Regards, BobF. My sister in law was of the opinion that she was fully qualified to be a shoe store manager because, in her words, "has bought a lot of shoes". |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Strange landing at SJC
wrote in message
... On Aug 27, 8:47 am, "Bob F." wrote: It was a rhetorical question without a lot of detail. And you answered it without fully understanding the problem, just like any Senior Executive, Politician or 12 year old. Absolutely correct, obvious, and useless to anyone trying to get the job done. ...with no disrespect. And you included in your answer using far more words than I did, that the underlying problem was that no one offered experience example. -- Regards, BobF. My sister in law was of the opinion that she was fully qualified to be a shoe store manager because, in her words, "has bought a lot of shoes". Yes, I ran into a similar situation when I came across someone who said he was a modem expert. It turned out he worked in purchasing and bought a few modems. And, we all remember "the Flight of the Phoenix" movie. -- Regards, BobF. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Strange landing at SJC
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Saw something strange... (0/1) | jc[_4_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | January 31st 08 06:16 PM |
strange | houstondan | Piloting | 10 | February 14th 06 05:02 PM |
Seems a little strange- | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 20 | January 30th 05 02:30 AM |
Strange one about the 296 | kage | Piloting | 0 | June 13th 04 01:42 AM |
Strange one??? | Big John | Piloting | 15 | March 4th 04 12:25 AM |