Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

brian whatcott writes:

Let's see: would I know to turn on the two hydraulics control breakers,
the FMS1 and the FMS 2 breakers, spin up the APU , turn on the pneumatic
manifold to spin up one main engine, select radio frequencies via the
FMS CDU, initialize the INS - and on and on.....

Yes.

Of course, you wouldn't need to know all these things just to land the
airplane, particularly with help from an instructor on the ground. But you'd
need them to fly the aircraft competently, and you wouldn't learn them in a
Cessna. In any case, when it comes to landing the 747, a Cessna pilot
wouldn't really have any clear advantage over a non-pilot--the few things he
might know how to do would either be useless on a 747 or would be too trivial
to help without assistance.

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:45:01 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Wingnut writes:

So, you're sayign that flight experience is irrelevant to flying an
aircraft?

That depends on the experience, and the aircraft. Flight experience in a
Cessna 152 will not necessarily be of any use in flying a 747 or a SR-71.

The lady in question has a commercial license, which implies more
experience than noodling around in a 152. At a minimum the lady
would know pulling back on the yoke raises the nose and and
pushing forward makes for nose down. She would also know that
turning the yoke will not make the plane turn unless the pedals
are also used. And, of course, she will know most of the lingo
and will know where to look when told to watch the air speed or
the artificial horizon. She will presumably know the difference
between mag north and true north and will have a pretty good idea
of which direction runway 120 points. She would know the purpose
of the flaps, the VOR, and so on. She will know how to read an
air chart.

The
basic principles are the same, but nothing more. Just as experience in driving
a Yugo doesn't necessarily help in driving a Formula 1 car.

It will help in driving the Formula 1 from the garage to the
street.

The notion that experience at something improves one's ability at that
something is a "myth"? Since when?

A person with experience in a Cessna 152 still has none in a 747, and so he
will not necessarily be any more useful in a 747 cockpit than a non-pilot
would.

Nonsense. While teh cockpit of a 747 is pretty complex, it still
contains the basic instruments of a twin-engine Beech.

Pilots of small private aircraft who believe that they could just slip into a
747 cockpit and fly it are just as naive as non-pilots who believe the same
thing.

I don't recall anyone here saying they could.

To fly an airliner, you need experience and/or training in flying
airliners, not Piper Cubs.

Well, duh. That's not the question at hand.

I don't think anyone here has claimed that. Though the less someone knows
about operating an aircraft, the poorer their odds.

Yes. I've heard many people claim this, however, and it only shows that they
are uninformed.

You've heard many people claim this? Who? And especially, who
here in this thread? As usual you're making up straw men.

A person with no flying experience who is compelled to take the controls of a
small aircraft without any automation runs a high risk of crashing. In a
large transport-category aircraft with heavy automation, though, he has a much
better chance of being able to land safely, if someone can give him
instructions over the radio. (Without instructions, his chances are just as
poor as they would be in the small aircraft.)

But this is a case where it would be especially helpful if the
person taking over the controls had, say, a commercial license,
for the reasons I cited above.

Not the scenario here. This person was a commercial pilot, not just
someone who had operated their own personal plane.

The same principle still applies to a certain extent, unless the commercial
pilot experience was in the same type of aircraft. If the FA had a CPL but had
not flown for 20 years, she may never have flown an airliner.

See the reasons I cited above. Among other things, an average
passenger sitting in the left or right seat would probably go
into shock at the mere sight of an airline instrument panel. Some
one with a commercial license, would immediately look for the
instruments familiar to him or her.

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

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:46:12 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Wingnut writes:

Who said anything about a Cessna? The original post said she had
experience as a *commercial* pilot. That tends to mean something a bit
bigger than just a personal aircraft.

You can fly commercially in a Cessna. And unless you also have a job as a
commercial pilot in addition to the CPL, you might not ever fly anything much
larger than that.

Yep. Might not. Or might have.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
brian whatcott writes:

Let's see: would I know to turn on the two hydraulics control breakers,
the FMS1 and the FMS 2 breakers, spin up the APU , turn on the pneumatic
manifold to spin up one main engine, select radio frequencies via the
FMS CDU, initialize the INS - and on and on.....

Yes.

Of course, you wouldn't need to know all these things just to land the
airplane, particularly with help from an instructor on the ground. But you'd
need them to fly the aircraft competently, and you wouldn't learn them in a
Cessna. In any case, when it comes to landing the 747, a Cessna pilot
wouldn't really have any clear advantage over a non-pilot--the few things he
might know how to do would either be useless on a 747 or would be too trivial
to help without assistance.

You mean like what the controls do and how to make a turn, what a stall is,
pulling the nose up decreases airspeed, putting the nose down decreases
airspeed, little things like that?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Most average people would be scared ****less in such a situation and likely
panic at the first bump.

Actually, most people behave themselves quite well in emergencies. No panic,
and only moderate fear.

Delusional.

I've heard people shrieking in terror when a steeper than normal for an
airliner bank was made.

I have not.

Since you admit you don't like to fly, that is hardly surprising.

True, but irrelevant, as pilots are used to them but non-pilots aren't
and for them it is scary.

The sensations in a typical jet transport are exceedingly tame, and do no
scare passengers. This is by design.

True when compared to most GA aircraft, but again irrelevant as it doesn't
take much to spook the average non-pilot.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Yeah, anybody can read a check list, but when it comes to the rubber
meeting the road, I just don't see a non pilot doing the simple tasks
inside a cockpit of a 767. It's a visual sensory overload for a
passenger when I had the Sundowner, and I know it would be the same
for me trying to find things in a 767.

Some people are more capable than others.

Yeah, sure, there is likely a handfull of people out of the roughly
7 billion non-pilots on the planet that would not panic if the job
of landing an airliner were thrust upon them.

The odds of winning the lottery here are lower than the odds you would
find one at random.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 20, 7:19*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

*In any case, when it comes to landing the 747, a Cessna pilot
wouldn't really have any clear advantage over a non-pilot-

WRONG. DEADLY WRONG if you really believe this.

OH, I guess it isn't deadly wrong since you have no clue what it takes
to fly a real plane.

On Jun 20, 7:30*pm, Hatunen wrote:

See the reasons I cited above. Among other things, an average
passenger sitting in the left or right seat would probably go
into shock at the mere sight of an airline instrument panel. Some
one with a commercial license, would immediately look for the
instruments familiar to him or her.

Not sure if you realize MX is a MSFS simmer, has never flown a real
plane, not a CGI, and no real world experience inside a real plane.
He just misrepresents himself as a pilot.

He doesn't understand the real world as you describe above. Your last
sentence is the key. Somebody with piloting experience would know
what the altimeter would look like in the myriad of instruments
presented in front of him or a DG for directional awareness. A non
pilot may not be so quick to identify it. Put in glass cockpit in the
mix, and you would have me lost trying to interpret the information
being presented. I simply can't imagine a non pilot trying to figure
it out especially with altitude and such.

Hatunen wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Wingnut writes:
So, you're sayign that flight experience is irrelevant to flying an
aircraft?

That depends on the experience, and the aircraft. Flight experience in
a Cessna 152 will not necessarily be of any use in flying a 747 or a
SR-71.

The lady in question has a commercial license, which implies more
experience than noodling around in a 152.

Commercial airplane rating requires at least 10 hours training in retracts,
controllable pitch prop, or be turbine powered. So it can't be completed
using just a Cessna 150/152. You need some training in something like a
Cessna 172RG or R182, at a minimum.

In article ,
says...

Hatunen wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Wingnut writes:
So, you're sayign that flight experience is irrelevant to flying an
aircraft?

That depends on the experience, and the aircraft. Flight experience in
a Cessna 152 will not necessarily be of any use in flying a 747 or a
SR-71.

The lady in question has a commercial license, which implies more
experience than noodling around in a 152.

Commercial airplane rating requires at least 10 hours training in retracts,
controllable pitch prop, or be turbine powered. So it can't be completed
using just a Cessna 150/152. You need some training in something like a
Cessna 172RG or R182, at a minimum.

Maybe in your country - not in New Zealand, Australia, nor (AFAIK) the
UK. One only need 200 hours, plus a small amount of time under the hood
(10hrs or 5?). The complex requirements are met on paper only (ie you
do a very simple exam).

--
Duncan.