Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

[Clarence do we have clearance?]

Maybe he shouldn't have had the fish. Thank goodness Karen Black was
working the flight!

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/flight-attendant-helps-pilot-land-plane.html
Flight attendant helps pilot land plane
June 15, 2010

A flight attendant who has a pilot's license replaced an ill first officer
during a landing at O'Hare International Airport, officials said today.

The co-pilot of an American Airlines plane that departed San Francisco on
Monday fell sick en route to Chicago, said American spokeswoman Mary
Frances Fagan.

"He was unable to continue his duties and he moved to the passenger cabin,"
Fagan said, adding that the flight's captain checked to see whether any
off-duty airline pilots were on board the flight.

A female flight attendant advised the captain that she is a commercial
pilot and the captain asked her to sit in the right-hand seat in the
cockpit, Fagan said.

"The flight attendant became the first officer on landing," she said. "The
cockpit crew did an outstanding job handling the situation."

The flight attendant helped the captain by reading off check list of
procedures and she handled other tasks, in addition to providing a second
set of eyes in the cockpit, Fagan said.

The plane, a Boeing 767 with 225 passengers and seven crew members on
board, arrived at O'Hare at 4:24 p.m. Monday. The landing was normal,
officials said.

The condition of the ill first officer was not serious, officials said. He
was met on the ground at O'Hare by paramedics and transported to a local
hospital, where he was treated and released.

The first officer was based in Chicago. He was resting on Tuesday,
officials said.

[moviePig]

On Jun 16, 9:19*am, "Clarence do we have clearance?"
> wrote:
> Maybe he shouldn't have had the fish. *Thank goodness Karen Black was
> working the flight!
>
> http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/flight-attendant-helps-pil...
> Flight attendant helps pilot land plane
> June 15, 2010
>
> A flight attendant who has a pilot's license replaced an ill first officer
> during a landing at O'Hare International Airport, officials said today.
>
> The co-pilot of an American Airlines plane that departed San Francisco on
> Monday fell sick en route to Chicago, said American spokeswoman Mary
> Frances Fagan.
>
> "He was unable to continue his duties and he moved to the passenger cabin,"
> Fagan said, adding that the flight's captain checked to see whether any
> off-duty airline pilots were on board the flight.
>
> A female flight attendant advised the captain that she is a commercial
> pilot and the captain asked her to sit in the right-hand seat in the
> cockpit, Fagan said.
>
> "The flight attendant became the first officer on landing," she said. "The
> cockpit crew did an outstanding job handling the situation."
>
> The flight attendant helped the captain by reading off check list of
> procedures and she handled other tasks, in addition to providing a second
> set of eyes in the cockpit, Fagan said.
>
> The plane, a Boeing 767 with 225 passengers and seven crew members on
> board, arrived at O'Hare at 4:24 p.m. Monday. The landing was normal,
> officials said.
>
> The condition of the ill first officer was not serious, officials said. He
> was met on the ground at O'Hare by paramedics and transported to a local
> hospital, where he was treated and released.
>
> The first officer was based in Chicago. He was resting on Tuesday,
> officials said.

The captain did, however, complain that she was slow to freshen his
coffee...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[Floyd]

Clarence do we have clearance? wrote:
> Maybe he shouldn't have had the fish. Thank goodness Karen Black was
> working the flight!
>
> http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/flight-attendant-helps-pilot-land-plane.html
>
> Flight attendant helps pilot land plane
> June 15, 2010
>
> A flight attendant who has a pilot's license replaced an ill first
> officer during a landing at O'Hare International Airport, officials said
> today.
>
> The co-pilot of an American Airlines plane that departed San Francisco
> on Monday fell sick en route to Chicago, said American spokeswoman Mary
> Frances Fagan.
>
> "He was unable to continue his duties and he moved to the passenger
> cabin," Fagan said, adding that the flight's captain checked to see
> whether any off-duty airline pilots were on board the flight.
>
> A female flight attendant advised the captain that she is a commercial
> pilot and the captain asked her to sit in the right-hand seat in the
> cockpit, Fagan said.
>
> "The flight attendant became the first officer on landing," she said.
> "The cockpit crew did an outstanding job handling the situation."
>
> The flight attendant helped the captain by reading off check list of
> procedures and she handled other tasks, in addition to providing a
> second set of eyes in the cockpit, Fagan said.
>
> The plane, a Boeing 767 with 225 passengers and seven crew members on
> board, arrived at O'Hare at 4:24 p.m. Monday. The landing was normal,
> officials said.
>
> The condition of the ill first officer was not serious, officials said.
> He was met on the ground at O'Hare by paramedics and transported to a
> local hospital, where he was treated and released.
>
> The first officer was based in Chicago. He was resting on Tuesday,
> officials said.
>

Is it hard to land when sitting in the captain's lap? Just kidding, I
hope the attendant gets a chance to fly for American as a pilot.

[clouddreamer]

Floyd > wrote:
> Clarence do we have clearance? wrote:
>> Maybe he shouldn't have had the fish. Thank goodness Karen Black was
>> working the flight!
>>
>> http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/flight-attendant-helps-pilot-land-plane.html
>>
>> Flight attendant helps pilot land plane
>> June 15, 2010
>>
>> A flight attendant who has a pilot's license replaced an ill first
>> officer during a landing at O'Hare International Airport, officials
>> said today.
>>
>> The co-pilot of an American Airlines plane that departed San Francisco
>> on Monday fell sick en route to Chicago, said American spokeswoman
>> Mary Frances Fagan.
>>
>> "He was unable to continue his duties and he moved to the passenger
>> cabin," Fagan said, adding that the flight's captain checked to see
>> whether any off-duty airline pilots were on board the flight.
>>
>> A female flight attendant advised the captain that she is a commercial
>> pilot and the captain asked her to sit in the right-hand seat in the
>> cockpit, Fagan said.
>>
>> "The flight attendant became the first officer on landing," she said.
>> "The cockpit crew did an outstanding job handling the situation."
>>
>> The flight attendant helped the captain by reading off check list of
>> procedures and she handled other tasks, in addition to providing a
>> second set of eyes in the cockpit, Fagan said.
>>
>> The plane, a Boeing 767 with 225 passengers and seven crew members on
>> board, arrived at O'Hare at 4:24 p.m. Monday. The landing was normal,
>> officials said.
>>
>> The condition of the ill first officer was not serious, officials
>> said. He was met on the ground at O'Hare by paramedics and transported
>> to a local hospital, where he was treated and released.
>>
>> The first officer was based in Chicago. He was resting on Tuesday,
>> officials said.
>>
>
> Is it hard to land when sitting in the captain's lap? Just kidding, I
> hope the attendant gets a chance to fly for American as a pilot.


I hope the airlines start giving free lessons to their flight attendants.

..

--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.

[Runge121]

"Clarence do we have clearance?" > a écrit dans le
message de groupe de discussion : ...
> Maybe he shouldn't have had the fish. Thank goodness Karen Black was
> working the flight!
>
> http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/flight-attendant-helps-pilot-land-plane.html
> Flight attendant helps pilot land plane
> June 15, 2010
>
> A flight attendant who has a pilot's license replaced an ill first officer
> during a landing at O'Hare International Airport, officials said today.
>
> The co-pilot of an American Airlines plane that departed San Francisco on
> Monday fell sick en route to Chicago, said American spokeswoman Mary
> Frances Fagan.
>
> "He was unable to continue his duties and he moved to the passenger
> cabin," Fagan said, adding that the flight's captain checked to see
> whether any off-duty airline pilots were on board the flight.
>
> A female flight attendant advised the captain that she is a commercial
> pilot and the captain asked her to sit in the right-hand seat in the
> cockpit, Fagan said.
>
> "The flight attendant became the first officer on landing," she said. "The
> cockpit crew did an outstanding job handling the situation."
>
> The flight attendant helped the captain by reading off check list of
> procedures and she handled other tasks, in addition to providing a second
> set of eyes in the cockpit, Fagan said.
>
> The plane, a Boeing 767 with 225 passengers and seven crew members on
> board, arrived at O'Hare at 4:24 p.m. Monday. The landing was normal,
> officials said.
>
> The condition of the ill first officer was not serious, officials said. He
> was met on the ground at O'Hare by paramedics and transported to a local
> hospital, where he was treated and released.
>
> The first officer was based in Chicago. He was resting on Tuesday,
> officials said.
>

[mikeos]

On 16/06/2010 14:19, Clarence do we have clearance? wrote:
> Maybe he shouldn't have had the fish. Thank goodness Karen Black was
> working the flight!
>
> http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/flight-attendant-helps-pilot-land-plane.html
>
> Flight attendant helps pilot land plane

Not only a trolly-dolly then!

[george]

On Jun 17, 8:06*am, mikeos > wrote:
> On 16/06/2010 14:19, Clarence do we have clearance? wrote:
>
> > Maybe he shouldn't have had the fish. *Thank goodness Karen Black was
> > working the flight!
>
> >http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/flight-attendant-helps-pil...
>
> > Flight attendant helps pilot land plane
>
> Not only a trolly-dolly then!

And with a CPL what's she doing ?
Working her way up ?

Give her a seat she's earned it !

[GrtArtiste]

On Jun 16, 9:19*am, "Clarence do we have clearance?"
> wrote:
> Maybe he shouldn't have had the fish. *Thank goodness Karen Black was
> working the flight!

Given this set of circumstances, what types of assistance would a
commercial-rated pilot be able to offer assuming she is not rated on
this type aircraft? I would guess-communications with ATC primarily.
What else?

GrtArtiste

[Hatunen]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:59:17 -0700, Floyd <""Ralph\"@
ralphs.com"> wrote:

>Clarence do we have clearance? wrote:
>> Maybe he shouldn't have had the fish. Thank goodness Karen Black was
>> working the flight!
>>
>> http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/flight-attendant-helps-pilot-land-plane.html
>>
>> Flight attendant helps pilot land plane
>> June 15, 2010
>>
>> A flight attendant who has a pilot's license replaced an ill first
>> officer during a landing at O'Hare International Airport, officials said
>> today.
>>
>> The co-pilot of an American Airlines plane that departed San Francisco
>> on Monday fell sick en route to Chicago, said American spokeswoman Mary
>> Frances Fagan.
>>
>> "He was unable to continue his duties and he moved to the passenger
>> cabin," Fagan said, adding that the flight's captain checked to see
>> whether any off-duty airline pilots were on board the flight.
>>
>> A female flight attendant advised the captain that she is a commercial
>> pilot and the captain asked her to sit in the right-hand seat in the
>> cockpit, Fagan said.
>>
>> "The flight attendant became the first officer on landing," she said.
>> "The cockpit crew did an outstanding job handling the situation."
>>
>> The flight attendant helped the captain by reading off check list of
>> procedures and she handled other tasks, in addition to providing a
>> second set of eyes in the cockpit, Fagan said.
>>
>> The plane, a Boeing 767 with 225 passengers and seven crew members on
>> board, arrived at O'Hare at 4:24 p.m. Monday. The landing was normal,
>> officials said.
>>
>> The condition of the ill first officer was not serious, officials said.
>> He was met on the ground at O'Hare by paramedics and transported to a
>> local hospital, where he was treated and released.
>>
>> The first officer was based in Chicago. He was resting on Tuesday,
>> officials said.
>>
>
>Is it hard to land when sitting in the captain's lap? Just kidding, I
>hope the attendant gets a chance to fly for American as a pilot.

It's a very big step from being licensed as a commercial pilot
and being licensed with an ATR (airline transport rating).

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

[vaughn[_3_]]

"GrtArtiste" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 16, 9:19 am, "Clarence do we have clearance?"
> wrote:
> Maybe he shouldn't have had the fish. Thank goodness Karen Black was
> working the flight!

>Given this set of circumstances, what types of assistance would a
>commercial-rated pilot be able to offer assuming she is not rated on
>this type aircraft? I would guess-communications with ATC primarily.
>What else?

Reading checklists aloud, perhaps setting radios & transponder, another set of
eyes looking for traffic.

Of course, what seems to have been left out of this story is that the Captain
was likely perfectly capable of flying the plane all by himself, but still, 1.5
pilots should be slightly safer than 1; particularly if the Captain and the
Copilot ate the same meal!.

Vaughn

[John Gilmer]

>Given this set of circumstances, what types of assistance would a
commercial-rated pilot be able to offer assuming she is not rated on
this type aircraft? I would guess-communications with ATC primarily.
What else?

She, as mentioned, can help run the radio. She also can read "check
lists."

The pilot knows where the various switches/levers are.

She can also call off speeds when landing.

Depending upon how much skill she has, she can double check whether the
pilot correctly did what the check list recommended. Indeed, that and the
radio are the only two areas where "flight" experience is useful.

[Captain Infinity]

Once Upon A Time,
John Gilmer wrote:

>>Given this set of circumstances, what types of assistance would a
>>commercial-rated pilot be able to offer assuming she is not rated on
>>this type aircraft? I would guess-communications with ATC primarily.
>>What else?
>
>She, as mentioned, can help run the radio. She also can read "check
>lists."
>
>The pilot knows where the various switches/levers are.
>
>She can also call off speeds when landing.

She can also re-inflate the auto-pilot, Otto, don't forget.


**
Captain Infinity

[Robert Barker]

"Clarence do we have clearance?" > wrote in message
...
> Maybe he shouldn't have had the fish. Thank goodness Karen Black was
> working the flight!
>
> http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/flight-attendant-helps-pilot-land-plane.html
> Flight attendant helps pilot land plane
> June 15, 2010
>
> A flight attendant who has a pilot's license replaced an ill first officer
> during a landing at O'Hare International Airport, officials said today.
>
> The co-pilot of an American Airlines plane that departed San Francisco on
> Monday fell sick en route to Chicago, said American spokeswoman Mary
> Frances Fagan.
>
> "He was unable to continue his duties and he moved to the passenger
> cabin," Fagan said, adding that the flight's captain checked to see
> whether any off-duty airline pilots were on board the flight.
>
> A female flight attendant advised the captain that she is a commercial
> pilot and the captain asked her to sit in the right-hand seat in the
> cockpit, Fagan said.
>
> "The flight attendant became the first officer on landing," she said. "The
> cockpit crew did an outstanding job handling the situation."
>
> The flight attendant helped the captain by reading off check list of
> procedures and she handled other tasks, in addition to providing a second
> set of eyes in the cockpit, Fagan said.
>
> The plane, a Boeing 767 with 225 passengers and seven crew members on
> board, arrived at O'Hare at 4:24 p.m. Monday. The landing was normal,
> officials said.
>
> The condition of the ill first officer was not serious, officials said. He
> was met on the ground at O'Hare by paramedics and transported to a local
> hospital, where he was treated and released.
>
> The first officer was based in Chicago. He was resting on Tuesday,
> officials said.
>

She must not have had the fish...

[Floyd]

Hatunen wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:59:17 -0700, Floyd <""Ralph\"@
> ralphs.com"> wrote:
>
>> Clarence do we have clearance? wrote:
>>> Maybe he shouldn't have had the fish. Thank goodness Karen Black was
>>> working the flight!
>>>
>>> http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/flight-attendant-helps-pilot-land-plane.html
>>>
>>> Flight attendant helps pilot land plane
>>> June 15, 2010
>>>
>>> A flight attendant who has a pilot's license replaced an ill first
>>> officer during a landing at O'Hare International Airport, officials said
>>> today.
>>>
>>> The co-pilot of an American Airlines plane that departed San Francisco
>>> on Monday fell sick en route to Chicago, said American spokeswoman Mary
>>> Frances Fagan.
>>>
>>> "He was unable to continue his duties and he moved to the passenger
>>> cabin," Fagan said, adding that the flight's captain checked to see
>>> whether any off-duty airline pilots were on board the flight.
>>>
>>> A female flight attendant advised the captain that she is a commercial
>>> pilot and the captain asked her to sit in the right-hand seat in the
>>> cockpit, Fagan said.
>>>
>>> "The flight attendant became the first officer on landing," she said.
>>> "The cockpit crew did an outstanding job handling the situation."
>>>
>>> The flight attendant helped the captain by reading off check list of
>>> procedures and she handled other tasks, in addition to providing a
>>> second set of eyes in the cockpit, Fagan said.
>>>
>>> The plane, a Boeing 767 with 225 passengers and seven crew members on
>>> board, arrived at O'Hare at 4:24 p.m. Monday. The landing was normal,
>>> officials said.
>>>
>>> The condition of the ill first officer was not serious, officials said.
>>> He was met on the ground at O'Hare by paramedics and transported to a
>>> local hospital, where he was treated and released.
>>>
>>> The first officer was based in Chicago. He was resting on Tuesday,
>>> officials said.
>>>
>> Is it hard to land when sitting in the captain's lap? Just kidding, I
>> hope the attendant gets a chance to fly for American as a pilot.
>
> It's a very big step from being licensed as a commercial pilot
> and being licensed with an ATR (airline transport rating).
>
I know.

[Mxsmanic]

Floyd <""Ralph\"@ ralphs.com"> writes:

> I hope the attendant gets a chance to fly for American as a pilot.

Without valid and current pilot's certifications, her chances are zero. And
she's past 60 years old, so she probably wouldn't be a good investment as a
pilot at this point in time.

[Mxsmanic]

Hatunen writes:

> It's a very big step from being licensed as a commercial pilot
> and being licensed with an ATR (airline transport rating).

It's an even bigger step when the CPL and medical expired twenty years
earlier.

[Mxsmanic]

GrtArtiste writes:

> Given this set of circumstances, what types of assistance would a
> commercial-rated pilot be able to offer assuming she is not rated on
> this type aircraft? I would guess-communications with ATC primarily.
> What else?

The same things any non-pilot could do: move levers and buttons when the
captain asks her two, read checklists, communicate with ATC, etc. It helps a
bit if she has piloting experience, but that doesn't mean that she will be
doing anything that _requires_ piloting experience.

[Mxsmanic]

vaughn writes:

> Of course, what seems to have been left out of this story is that the Captain
> was likely perfectly capable of flying the plane all by himself ...

Not merely likely but certainly, by design. It's a non-event.

[a[_3_]]

On Jun 17, 2:42*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Hatunen writes:
> > It's a very big step from being licensed as a commercial pilot
> > and being licensed with an ATR (airline transport rating).
>
> It's an even bigger step when the CPL and medical expired twenty years
> earlier.

Think of this as a learning experience. PP and CP Licenses do not
expire.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Jun 17, 2:44*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> GrtArtiste writes:
> > Given this set of circumstances, what types of assistance would a
> > commercial-rated pilot be able to offer assuming she is not rated on
> > this type aircraft? I would guess-communications with ATC primarily.
> > What else?
>
> The same things any non-pilot could do: move levers and buttons when the
> captain asks her two, read checklists, communicate with ATC, etc. *It helps a
> bit if she has piloting experience, but that doesn't mean that she will be
> doing anything that _requires_ piloting experience.

This is absolutely correct. At no time was this attendant actually
flying this aircraft. She came up front and sat down in the right seat
acting as an extra set of hands to select, push, pull, and turn, any
and all switches and levers as asked for by the Captain. She acted as
an "assistant" and that's all.
Not to take anything away from this lady who performed as asked to
perform under trying circumstances, and indeed she personally appeared
on national TV this morning to "set straight" all the hype being
presented about her acting in any other capacity than that I have
stated above.
It helped certainly that this nice lady had flying experience but it
was by NO MEANS essential to what she was asked to do or what she
actually did in the cockpit.
Had the Captain opted to, he most certainly could have completed the
flight to a safe completion from the left seat without assistance. He
might have had to extend his reach a bit at times, but nothing earth
shattering for sure.
All in all, this was a class crew and they did a class job, right down
to the stew who very classily and politely deflated the media hype on
her role in the completion of this flight.
Dudley Henriques

[Hatunen]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:41:58 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Floyd <""Ralph\"@ ralphs.com"> writes:
>
>> I hope the attendant gets a chance to fly for American as a pilot.
>
>Without valid and current pilot's certifications, her chances are zero. And
>she's past 60 years old, so she probably wouldn't be a good investment as a
>pilot at this point in time.

Perhaps not for an ATR rating, but it was already mentioned that
she has a commrcial pilot's license.

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

[Wingnut]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:10:01 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> It helped certainly that this nice lady had flying experience but it
> was by NO MEANS essential to what she was asked to do or what she
> actually did in the cockpit.
>
> Had the Captain opted to, he most certainly could have completed the
> flight to a safe completion from the left seat without assistance. He
> might have had to extend his reach a bit at times, but nothing earth
> shattering for sure.
>
> All in all, this was a class crew and they did a class job, right down
> to the stew who very classily and politely deflated the media hype on
> her role in the completion of this flight.

Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
would have become quite relevant indeed.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Jun 18, 12:13*am, Wingnut > wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:10:01 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > It helped certainly that this nice lady had flying experience but it
> > was by NO MEANS essential to what she was asked to do or what she
> > actually did in the cockpit.
>
> > Had the Captain opted to, he most certainly could have completed the
> > flight to a safe completion from the left seat without assistance. He
> > might have had to extend his reach a bit at times, but nothing earth
> > shattering for sure.
>
> > All in all, this was a class crew and they did a class job, right down
> > to the stew who very classily and politely deflated the media hype on
> > her role in the completion of this flight.
>
> Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
> the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
> would have become quite relevant indeed.

It's an interesting hypothesis for sure, and such a scenario has
indeed been the subject of many discussions over time. The general
consensus in the area where I work in human factors in aircraft
accidents is that the result of such an attempt would depend on many
factors, a great many of these factors over and above the "experience"
factor of the newbie involved.
Makes a great movie though :-))
DH

[Private]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 17, 2:44 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> GrtArtiste writes:
> > Given this set of circumstances, what types of assistance would a
> > commercial-rated pilot be able to offer assuming she is not rated on
> > this type aircraft? I would guess-communications with ATC primarily.
> > What else?
>
> The same things any non-pilot could do: move levers and buttons when the
> captain asks her two, read checklists, communicate with ATC, etc. It helps
> a
> bit if she has piloting experience, but that doesn't mean that she will be
> doing anything that _requires_ piloting experience.

This is absolutely correct. At no time was this attendant actually
flying this aircraft. She came up front and sat down in the right seat
acting as an extra set of hands to select, push, pull, and turn, any
and all switches and levers as asked for by the Captain. She acted as
an "assistant" and that's all.
Not to take anything away from this lady who performed as asked to
perform under trying circumstances, and indeed she personally appeared
on national TV this morning to "set straight" all the hype being
presented about her acting in any other capacity than that I have
stated above.
It helped certainly that this nice lady had flying experience but it
was by NO MEANS essential to what she was asked to do or what she
actually did in the cockpit.
Had the Captain opted to, he most certainly could have completed the
flight to a safe completion from the left seat without assistance. He
might have had to extend his reach a bit at times, but nothing earth
shattering for sure.
All in all, this was a class crew and they did a class job, right down
to the stew who very classily and politely deflated the media hype on
her role in the completion of this flight.
Dudley Henriques


I find it interesting that no one has raised the subject of CRM. This seems
to be a great example of the PIC assembling and using effectively all the
resources available. I am confident that the PIC would have received
extensive CRM training which probably included dealing with similar
situations. I suspect that the PIC provided the FA clear direction as to
the tasks she was required to perform as well as carefully monitoring her
performance in the same way that the regular co-pilot would be.

The entire crew deserves a 'nicely done'.

Happy landings,

[Mxsmanic]

Wingnut writes:

> Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
> the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
> would have become quite relevant indeed.

Not necessarily. In a situation like that, what would be most important would
be her ability to follow instructions precisely, and the availability of a
qualified pilot to guide her over the radio. These two things would override
any piloting experience she might have.

There are two myths that need to be dispelled, namely (1) the notion that
anyone with any piloting experience necessarily will do a better job of
getting an plane home safely in an emergency, and (2) the notion that someone
without any piloting experience would necessarily crash the airplane.

The skill needed when both pilots get sick from the fish is an ability to do
as one is told, and this is independent of piloting experience. Additionally,
a qualified pilot needs to be available on the radio (preferably an
instructor). An experienced Cessna pilot without help over the radio will
probably get in some possibly fatal trouble, and conversely a non-pilot with
expert help over the radio may well be able to land the airplane safely.

This has a great deal to do with automation and the differences between
airliners and small aircraft.

You would definitely want to avoid someone who might be tempted to take
initiatives rather than just follow instructions--and for this reason, putting
a Cessna pilot in the left seat might actually be a worse idea than putting a
complete non-pilot in that seat. The non-pilot might be more likely to just do
as he is told, which is exactly what you need.

[Bob Myers]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> There are two myths that need to be dispelled, namely (1) the notion
> that anyone with any piloting experience necessarily will do a better
> job of getting an plane home safely in an emergency, and (2) the
> notion that someone without any piloting experience would necessarily
> crash the airplane.

Your personal experience re piloting is...what, exactly?


Bob M.

[george]

On Jun 19, 6:17*am, "Bob Myers" > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > There are two myths that need to be dispelled, namely (1) the notion
> > that anyone with any piloting experience necessarily will do a better
> > job of getting an plane home safely in an emergency, and (2) the
> > notion that someone without any piloting experience would necessarily
> > crash the airplane.
>
> Your personal experience re piloting is...what, exactly?
>
He's our own little Walter Mitty...
No doubt this incidence infringes on one of his dreams

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Jun 18, 12:13*am, Wingnut > wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:10:01 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > It helped certainly that this nice lady had flying experience but it
> > was by NO MEANS essential to what she was asked to do or what she
> > actually did in the cockpit.
>
> > Had the Captain opted to, he most certainly could have completed the
> > flight to a safe completion from the left seat without assistance. He
> > might have had to extend his reach a bit at times, but nothing earth
> > shattering for sure.
>
> > All in all, this was a class crew and they did a class job, right down
> > to the stew who very classily and politely deflated the media hype on
> > her role in the completion of this flight.
>
> Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
> the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
> would have become quite relevant indeed.

Actually her prior light plane flying experience could be a negative
believe it or not. Her ability to follow explicit instruction
resulting in any control input involves an aircraft time
line requiring a response to input correction involving an input to
initiate and an input to stop the response. Assuming a requirement for
a correct result each and every time a control input was initiated,
prior experience in a light plane enters the element of expectation
into the input equation for the newbie. In other words, the difference
between the actual result of any manual control input to a 767's
controls in any and all axis, especially when coupled, roll/
yaw.......pitch/roll etc.....by a newbie needing the result to be
right the first time tried from verbal instruction with the newbie
having an expected response based on a totally different airplane
places an EXTRA element into the equation that could easily extend/
alter/ or change the required response time line.
This scenario could easily make the correction time line longer than
it might have been had no expectation of aircraft response been
involved.
All this is just a fancy way of saying that prior experience in a
Cessna 150 might not matter in a 767 being landed by a newbie
following detailed instruction.
DH

[[email protected]]

On Jun 18, 12:51*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Not necessarily. In a situation like that, what would be most important would
> be her ability to follow instructions precisely, and the availability of a
> qualified pilot to guide her over the radio. These two things would override
> any piloting experience she might have.

WRONG

[Ari Silverstein]

On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:11:10 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> All this is just a fancy way of saying that prior experience in a
> Cessna 150 might not matter in a 767 being landed by a newbie
> following detailed instruction.

Like Atta? Tell Dekker and Hilliard that.

lol
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Jun 19, 6:40*am, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:11:10 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > All this is just a fancy way of saying that prior experience in a
> > Cessna 150 might not matter in a 767 being landed by a newbie
> > following detailed instruction.
>
> Like Atta? Tell Dekker and Hilliard that.
>
> lol
> --
> A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj
> Motto: Live To Spooge It!

I fail to see your point. Ata and his fellow terrorists trained
specifically in full motion simulators designed to duplicate the exact
type of aircraft they took over and flew. There were no landings
involved in their actions.

[Ari Silverstein]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 05:22:25 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Jun 19, 6:40*am, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:11:10 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> All this is just a fancy way of saying that prior experience in a
>>> Cessna 150 might not matter in a 767 being landed by a newbie
>>> following detailed instruction.
>>
>> Like Atta? Tell Dekker and Hilliard that.
>>
>> lol
>> --
>> A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj
>> Motto: Live To Spooge It!
>
> I fail to see your point.

Brush up on your 9/11 history.

> Ata and his fellow terrorists trained
> specifically in full motion simulators designed to duplicate the exact
> type of aircraft they took over and flew. There were no landings
> involved in their actions.

Tell Dekker and Hilliard that. Then wait for the laugh.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Jun 19, 8:33*am, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 05:22:25 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 6:40 am, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:11:10 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >>> All this is just a fancy way of saying that prior experience in a
> >>> Cessna 150 might not matter in a 767 being landed by a newbie
> >>> following detailed instruction.
>
> >> Like Atta? Tell Dekker and Hilliard that.
>
> >> lol
> >> --
> >> A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj
> >> Motto: Live To Spooge It!
>
> > I fail to see your point.
>
> Brush up on your 9/11 history.
>
> > Ata and his fellow terrorists trained
> > specifically in full motion simulators designed to duplicate the exact
> > type of aircraft they took over and flew. There were no landings
> > involved in their actions.
>
> Tell Dekker and Hilliard that. Then wait for the laugh.
> --
> A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj
> Motto: Live To Spooge It!

Ah yes. Should have caught on with the tone of your initial post.
Forgot who you are for a moment. Chalk it up to getting older.
So much for "piloting" posting today; onward now to things a bit more
productive. Have a nice day. :-)))))))

[Ari Silverstein]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 05:44:51 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Jun 19, 8:33*am, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 05:22:25 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> On Jun 19, 6:40 am, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:11:10 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>> All this is just a fancy way of saying that prior experience in a
>>>>> Cessna 150 might not matter in a 767 being landed by a newbie
>>>>> following detailed instruction.
>>
>>>> Like Atta? Tell Dekker and Hilliard that.
>>
>>>> lol
>>>> --
>>>> A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj
>>>> Motto: Live To Spooge It!
>>
>>> I fail to see your point.
>>
>> Brush up on your 9/11 history.
>>
>>> Ata and his fellow terrorists trained
>>> specifically in full motion simulators designed to duplicate the exact
>>> type of aircraft they took over and flew. There were no landings
>>> involved in their actions.
>>
>> Tell Dekker and Hilliard that. Then wait for the laugh.
>> --
>> A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj
>> Motto: Live To Spooge It!
>
> Ah yes. Should have caught on with the tone of your initial post.
> Forgot who you are for a moment. Chalk it up to getting older.
> So much for "piloting" posting today; onward now to things a bit more
> productive. Have a nice day. :-)))))))

Keep in mind that:

1) You don't know everything
2) Venice is in my neck of the woods, Hilliard is a neighbor and...
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Jun 19, 9:14*am, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 05:44:51 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 8:33 am, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
> >> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 05:22:25 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >>> On Jun 19, 6:40 am, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:11:10 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >>>>> All this is just a fancy way of saying that prior experience in a
> >>>>> Cessna 150 might not matter in a 767 being landed by a newbie
> >>>>> following detailed instruction.
>
> >>>> Like Atta? Tell Dekker and Hilliard that.
>
> >>>> lol
> >>>> --
> >>>> A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj
> >>>> Motto: Live To Spooge It!
>
> >>> I fail to see your point.
>
> >> Brush up on your 9/11 history.
>
> >>> Ata and his fellow terrorists trained
> >>> specifically in full motion simulators designed to duplicate the exact
> >>> type of aircraft they took over and flew. There were no landings
> >>> involved in their actions.
>
> >> Tell Dekker and Hilliard that. Then wait for the laugh.
> >> --
> >> A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj
> >> Motto: Live To Spooge It!
>
> > Ah yes. Should have caught on with the tone of your initial post.
> > Forgot who you are for a moment. Chalk it up to getting older.
> > So much for "piloting" posting today; onward now to things a bit more
> > productive. Have a nice day. :-)))))))
>
> Keep in mind that:
>
> 1) You don't know everything
..
.......and YOU might keep in mind that I don't HAVE to know everything.
I have a wife for that.
Have a nice day.
DH

[Ari Silverstein]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 06:59:00 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Jun 19, 9:14*am, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 05:44:51 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> On Jun 19, 8:33 am, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 05:22:25 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 19, 6:40 am, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:11:10 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>>>> All this is just a fancy way of saying that prior experience in a
>>>>>>> Cessna 150 might not matter in a 767 being landed by a newbie
>>>>>>> following detailed instruction.
>>
>>>>>> Like Atta? Tell Dekker and Hilliard that.
>>
>>>>>> lol
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj
>>>>>> Motto: Live To Spooge It!
>>
>>>>> I fail to see your point.
>>
>>>> Brush up on your 9/11 history.
>>
>>>>> Ata and his fellow terrorists trained
>>>>> specifically in full motion simulators designed to duplicate the exact
>>>>> type of aircraft they took over and flew. There were no landings
>>>>> involved in their actions.
>>
>>>> Tell Dekker and Hilliard that. Then wait for the laugh.
>>>> --
>>>> A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj
>>>> Motto: Live To Spooge It!
>>
>>> Ah yes. Should have caught on with the tone of your initial post.
>>> Forgot who you are for a moment. Chalk it up to getting older.
>>> So much for "piloting" posting today; onward now to things a bit more
>>> productive. Have a nice day. :-)))))))
>>
>> Keep in mind that:
>>
>> 1) You don't know everything
> .
> ......and YOU might keep in mind that I don't HAVE to know everything.
> I have a wife for that.

Then ask her about Huffman.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Wingnut]

On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 19:51:12 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

> Wingnut writes:
>
>> Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
>> the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
>> would have become quite relevant indeed.
>
> Not necessarily.

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

> There are two myths that need to be dispelled, namely (1) the notion
> that anyone with any piloting experience necessarily will do a better
> job of getting an plane home safely in an emergency

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

> (2) the notion that someone without any piloting experience would
> necessarily crash the airplane.

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

> An experienced Cessna pilot without help over the radio will probably
> get in some possibly fatal trouble

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

[Wingnut]

On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:11:10 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> All this is just a fancy way of saying that prior experience in a Cessna
> 150 might not matter in a 767

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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
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.

> 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.

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

> 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.

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.)

> 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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Jun 20, 4:30*am, Wingnut > wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:11:10 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > All this is just a fancy way of saying that prior experience in a Cessna
> > 150 might not matter in a 767
>
> 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.

I believe the lady herself said during a TV interview that her
experience was restricted to light aircraft. The type "Cessna" was
mentioned.

DH

[vaughn[_3_]]

"Wingnut" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

Not so. The training and testing for the Commercial certificate is normally
done in single engine aircraft; often very simple single engine aircraft. To
take a step down from that, I hold a Commercial glider pilot certificate and
have taken hundreds of paying passengers up in sailplanes.

Vaughn

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Wingnut writes:
>
>> Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
>> the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
>> would have become quite relevant indeed.
>
> Not necessarily. In a situation like that, what would be most important would
> be her ability to follow instructions precisely, and the availability of a
> qualified pilot to guide her over the radio. These two things would override
> any piloting experience she might have.

Nope.

In a situation like that, what would be most important would be her ability
to stay calm, not panic and fly the airplane.

Look around at the average non-pilots in an airliner when a sudden noise
like the gear coming up happens and you will see lots of faces with
momentary fear and it gets worse with even the mildest of turbulence.

The reality is the average non-pilot is afraid of flying to some extent or
other and becomes frightened at just about every bump or sudden change in
the background noise.

My opinion is all the sensory inputs (of which those only "flying" sims
have no clue) along with the the huge responsibility of flying an aircraft
full of other people would likely overwhelm the average non-pilot.

And since all pilots are trained "to follow instructions precisely", that
becomes two reasons that a random pilot has better chances of success than
a random non-pilot.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> In a situation like that, what would be most important would be her ability
> to stay calm, not panic and fly the airplane.

She'll need to be able to follow instructions to fly the airplane. Most people
won't panic in a situation like that, although they may be very anxious.

> Look around at the average non-pilots in an airliner when a sudden noise
> like the gear coming up happens and you will see lots of faces with
> momentary fear and it gets worse with even the mildest of turbulence.

When I look around at passengers in an airliner cabin, I usually don't see
anyone who even notices the noise of the gear retracting, and most ignore
turbulence as well unless it spills their drinks.

> The reality is the average non-pilot is afraid of flying to some extent or
> other and becomes frightened at just about every bump or sudden change in
> the background noise.

Only a minority of people have a fear of flying, although it's a substantial
minority (around 14% according to some estimates, if I remember correctly).
The rest are non-pilots without fear.

> My opinion is all the sensory inputs (of which those only "flying" sims
> have no clue) ...

The sensory inputs are the same for pilots as they are for passengers.

> ... along with the the huge responsibility of flying an aircraft
> full of other people would likely overwhelm the average non-pilot.

You greatly exaggerate the special character of flying. It doesn't scare
people that much (or at all), and they do not instantly panic when things go
wrong.

> And since all pilots are trained "to follow instructions precisely", that
> becomes two reasons that a random pilot has better chances of success than
> a random non-pilot.

Pilots are trained to take responsibility and fly the airplane themselves.
Taking instructions is secondary to that.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> In a situation like that, what would be most important would be her ability
>> to stay calm, not panic and fly the airplane.
>
> She'll need to be able to follow instructions to fly the airplane. Most people
> won't panic in a situation like that, although they may be very anxious.

Delusional.

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

>> Look around at the average non-pilots in an airliner when a sudden noise
>> like the gear coming up happens and you will see lots of faces with
>> momentary fear and it gets worse with even the mildest of turbulence.
>
> When I look around at passengers in an airliner cabin, I usually don't see
> anyone who even notices the noise of the gear retracting, and most ignore
> turbulence as well unless it spills their drinks.

Delusional.

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

<snip>

> The sensory inputs are the same for pilots as they are for passengers.

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

<snip>

> Pilots are trained to take responsibility and fly the airplane themselves.
> Taking instructions is secondary to that.

Babble.

Have you ever heard of a CFI or ATC?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 20, 12:38*pm, wrote:

> My opinion is all the sensory inputs (of which those only "flying" sims
> have no clue) along with the the huge responsibility of flying an aircraft
> full of other people would likely overwhelm the average non-pilot.
>
> And since all pilots are trained "to follow instructions precisely", that
> becomes two reasons that a random pilot has better chances of success than
> a random non-pilot.

EXACTLY.

Case in point.

I flew a Cessna for the first time in 8 years. I was told the
avionics was similar to my Garmin 430 so I should not have ANY problem
adopting to the plane.

Sadly that was wrong and had I not had a pilot with me, I would still
be scratching my head trying to tune the frequency. Radio was such to
get odd numbers on the last two digits of the frequency, you had to
PULL the knob out and twist. 117.9, I had to pull the knob out to
dial in the 7. I didn't have to do that.

I cannot imagine the NON pilot even setting the altimeter since you
have to know to look for the kohlsman window to set it (if they find
the thing at all in the myriad of instruments on a jet) Experience
of the FA having pilot background was just one less step. She
probably didn't even have to be told where the PTT was on the yoke AND
that it's not a two way function like a telephone. I wouldn't expect
the non pilot to know this if they had to step up to the plate on an
emergency situation.

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.

MX has no clue about sensory overload, the flat screen monitor twain't
the real world since everything can be seen without turning one's
head. Try that in a 767.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

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

I have not.

> 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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Brian Whatcott]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> /snip/To fly an airliner, you need experience and/or training in flying
> airliners, not Piper Cubs. /snip/

Sadly, the task is even more limiting: it is necessary to get flight
training in a PARTICULAR aircraft type. It's the systems know-how
that has to be built.

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.....

Brian W
p.s. I cut out the entertainment NGs.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"vaughn" > wrote

> Not so. The training and testing for the Commercial certificate is
> normally done in single engine aircraft; often very simple single engine
> aircraft. To take a step down from that, I hold a Commercial glider
> pilot certificate and have taken hundreds of paying passengers up in
> sailplanes.

Best to ignore this wingnut, as the knowledge of aviation is only slightly
above MX. 'Nuff said.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Hatunen]

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 *

[Hatunen]

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 *

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Jim Logajan]

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.

[Dave Doe]

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.

[Hatunen]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 05:01:37 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>On Jun 20, 4:30*am, Wingnut > wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:11:10 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> > All this is just a fancy way of saying that prior experience in a Cessna
>> > 150 might not matter in a 767
>>
>> 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.
>
>I believe the lady herself said during a TV interview that her
>experience was restricted to light aircraft. The type "Cessna" was
>mentioned.

Cessna makes or made (I don't recall the current structure of the
personal aircraft inudstry) some heavier aircraft than the 150s I
used to fly. Including some Jets (the Citation line).

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

[Hatunen]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:26:24 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>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.

I'm quite familiar with Mixie. From time to time I get fed up and
killfile him, but it's usually set to expred after thirty days of
no kills, and he seems to have gone away for that long this time.

>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.

While a heavy jet is a big sucker with a very complex panel
(although lighter aircraft are now sporting some pretty
compicated-looking electronci panels now) the principals are
basic for any one who has flown a plane for even a short time:
keep it level except coordinated turns. To land glide down to
near stall speed, flare at the runway apron and make it stall
just as the wheels tough the runway.

Of course, that last part takes some real practice (I failed my
first flight test on the emergency landing). I don't know if
modern airliners can, as they say, land themselves, or at least
if they all can. I m pretty sure that if the plane is set up to
land itself it has to be at a runway set up for it.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Hatunen writes:

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

You can fly any sort of aircraft as a commercial pilot, and in particular, a
CPL does not necessarily imply any experience at all in large jet transport
aircraft. If you want to barnstorm across the country in a 152, for example,
you need a CPL.

> 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.

Presumably, but since she will absolutely not be touching these flight
controls, this knowledge is useless.

> 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.

There isn't a lot of lingo to know, but she might find it easier to locate the
attitude indicator on the PFD without it being described to her, and she might
find the airspeed without it being explained, although that depends largely on
her ingenuity--small aircraft twenty years ago did not have PFDs.

> 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.

All she is going to do is turn a few knobs or move a few levers, which anyone
can do, with or without a pilot's license.

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

Actually, apart from the compass, standby AI, and altimeter, there's almost
nothing in common. The cockpit does have a yoke, rudder pedals, and a couple
of throttles, but she needs to stay away from those.

> I don't recall anyone here saying they could.

This isn't the only place where I discuss aviation. Anyway, the same pilots
who believe that a non-pilot would instantly crash any aircraft also tend to
believe that they can fly anything, even if they've never been in any aircraft
with more than two seats and a propeller.

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

Well, yes, it is. You can only stretch knowledge of one aircraft so far, then
you need to explicitly study other aircraft. Knowing how to drive a Ford
Escort does not teach you how to drive a tractor-trailer rig, even if they are
both road vehicles.

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

As I've said, I discuss aviation in all sorts of venues, not just on USENET.

> 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.

I've explained why those reasons would be mostly inapplicable.

> 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.

Not so. In real-world emergency situations, people tend to be a lot calmer
than they are in Hollywood movies or in imagination. There are some who panic,
but many who don't. Natural selection doesn't favor people who panic easily.

> Some one with a commercial license, would immediately look for the
> instruments familiar to him or her.

And would become just as alarmed as the non-pilot upon realizing that
virtually nothing looks familiar.

[Mxsmanic]

Hatunen writes:

> While a heavy jet is a big sucker with a very complex panel
> (although lighter aircraft are now sporting some pretty
> compicated-looking electronci panels now) the principals are
> basic for any one who has flown a plane for even a short time:
> keep it level except coordinated turns. To land glide down to
> near stall speed, flare at the runway apron and make it stall
> just as the wheels tough the runway.

In an emergency, a person who isn't a pilot certified for the aircraft in
question needs to use the automation, not take the controls manually. The
latter can easily lead to disaster.

The problem is that you need actual practice in an airplane in order to become
good at handling the controls, or you need to find an expensive, full-motion
simulator for the same purpose. Having experience in a vastly different
airplane won't help you much.

In contrast, anyone can fly with automation, as long as he has instructions
from someone qualified. And cruise flight and landing are or can be automated
in large jet airliners. So the logical thing to do with an underqualified
person in the cockpit is to stick to the automation to fly and land the
aircraft.

Anyone can turn knobs and move levers, but most people require a certain
amount of practice before they can competently drive a moving vehicle.

If aircraft are similar enough, of course, this doesn't apply. One can fly one
type of Cessna single-engine prop with only experience in other models, and
not make too many mistakes (although retractable gear and pitch adjustments
can complicate things). But these small aircraft and large airliners are not
similar.

> Of course, that last part takes some real practice (I failed my
> first flight test on the emergency landing). I don't know if
> modern airliners can, as they say, land themselves, or at least
> if they all can. I m pretty sure that if the plane is set up to
> land itself it has to be at a runway set up for it.

Large airliners certified for autoland (which means most airliners) can land
themselves if set up to do so, at airports with the proper equipment (which
means an ILS certified for the purpose, although in a pinch almost any ILS
might suffice). Autolands are not the rule, but in a situation like the one
under discussion, where the airplane might be flown by a non-pilot or a pilot
who doesn't have experience in type, an autoland would be the safest option,
as it requires nothing more than the aforementioned pushing of buttons,
turning of knobs, and movement of levers. No manual flying skill is required,
and manual flying skill is the one thing that you cannot provide to an
inexperienced person in the heat of an emergency.

[Mxsmanic]

Hatunen writes:

> Cessna makes or made (I don't recall the current structure of the
> personal aircraft inudstry) some heavier aircraft than the 150s I
> used to fly. Including some Jets (the Citation line).

Yes. I fly a Citation X on my trusty sim all the time. But flying jets is
expensive, and one need not do so for a CPL. Indeed, it might well be the
other way around: CPL, then jets.

[Brian Whatcott]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> You can fly any sort of aircraft as a commercial pilot, and in particular, a
> CPL does not necessarily imply any experience at all in large jet transport
> aircraft....

You can fly any type of aircraft at all on a private license.

Surprise, surprise!

Brian W
p.s. Entertainment NGs cut out.

[Mxsmanic]

brian whatcott writes:

> You can fly any type of aircraft at all on a private license.
>
> Surprise, surprise!

Where's the surprise?

[[email protected]]

On Jun 21, 4:24*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Large airliners certified for autoland (which means most airliners) can land
> themselves if set up to do so, at airports with the proper equipment (which
> means an ILS certified for the purpose, although in a pinch almost any ILS
> might suffice). Autolands are not the rule, but in a situation like the one
> under discussion, where the airplane might be flown by a non-pilot or a pilot
> who doesn't have experience in type, an autoland would be the safest option,
> as it requires nothing more than the aforementioned pushing of buttons,
> turning of knobs,

Yeah right, find the right combination of buttons AND push the button
to talk to a person who may or may not be there to help you push the
right buttons AND fly the plane until you get such combination of
instructions into the MFD to set up for autoland. I BET YOU CAN'T.

Oh wait, your vision is restricted to a 19 inch monitor, so yeah IN
YOUR MSFS simulator, you have a better chance since you don't have a
fear factor of losing your life.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 21, 12:39*am, Hatunen > wrote:

> While a heavy jet is a big sucker with a very complex panel
> (although lighter aircraft are now sporting some pretty
> compicated-looking electronci panels now) the principals are
> basic for any one who has flown a plane for even a short time:
> keep it level except coordinated turns. To land glide down to
> near stall speed, flare at the runway apron and make it stall
> just as the wheels tough the runway.

Yep, the drill is fly the plane which means airspeed, airspeed,
airspeed. Look at that ASEL pilot who landed the king air. He knew
the importance of airspeed.

I doubt that John Q Public would know that if they were afronted with
an array of buttons, lights, gauges to realize where the ASI is,
altimeter, heading and such.

Looking at my own experiences, I know it would be extremely
intimidating and distracting, can't imagine John Q Public sitting in
right or left seat being able to assimulate such a vast array of
information plus program the MFD as MX thinks can be easily done.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 21, 6:55*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> brian whatcott writes:
> > You can fly any type of aircraft at all on a private license.
>
> > Surprise, surprise!
>
> Where's the surprise?

Detail must not be your forte.

Get off your computer, go to your local airport and take a lesson.
Then you will have the answer to your question

[[email protected]]

On Jun 21, 4:08*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> As I've said, I discuss aviation in all sorts of venues, not just on USENET.

So pray tell, share with us your so called sources since you are not a
pilot, not a CGI and pretend to be something you are not?

Or are they also simulated discussions with sources like MSFS?

[[email protected]]

On Jun 21, 4:26*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Yes. I fly a Citation X on my trusty sim all the time.

FOR THE RECORD, YOU SIMULATE FLYING.

BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SIMULATING FLYING AND FLYING A REAL PLANE.

[JohnT[_3_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Hatunen writes:
>
>> Cessna makes or made (I don't recall the current structure of the
>> personal aircraft inudstry) some heavier aircraft than the 150s I
>> used to fly. Including some Jets (the Citation line).
>
> Yes. I fly a Citation X on my trusty sim all the time. But flying jets is
> expensive, and one need not do so for a CPL. Indeed, it might well be the
> other way around: CPL, then jets.

Playing a computer game doesn't make you an expert.
--
JohnT

[a[_3_]]

On Jun 21, 10:55*am, "JohnT" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Hatunen writes:
>
> >> Cessna makes or made (I don't recall the current structure of the
> >> personal aircraft inudstry) some heavier aircraft than the 150s I
> >> used to fly. Including some Jets (the Citation line).
>
> > Yes. I fly a Citation X on my trusty sim all the time. But flying jets is
> > expensive, and one need not do so for a CPL. Indeed, it might well be the
> > other way around: CPL, then jets.
>
> Playing a computer game doesn't make you an expert.
> --
> JohnT

Perhaps not, John, but I expect the reality is few people flying real
jets in the civilian world are holding only private licenses with the
appropriate type rating.

Now here is a question that really displays my ignorance: what
certificates do military pilots hold? Are those certificates issued by
the FAA?

[JohnT[_3_]]

"a" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 21, 10:55 am, "JohnT" > wrote:
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > Hatunen writes:
>>
>> >> Cessna makes or made (I don't recall the current structure of the
>> >> personal aircraft inudstry) some heavier aircraft than the 150s I
>> >> used to fly. Including some Jets (the Citation line).
>>
>> > Yes. I fly a Citation X on my trusty sim all the time. But flying jets
>> > is
>> > expensive, and one need not do so for a CPL. Indeed, it might well be
>> > the
>> > other way around: CPL, then jets.
>>
>> Playing a computer game doesn't make you an expert.
>> --
>> JohnT
>
> Perhaps not, John, but I expect the reality is few people flying real
> jets in the civilian world are holding only private licenses with the
> appropriate type rating.
>
> Now here is a question that really displays my ignorance: what
> certificates do military pilots hold? Are those certificates issued by
> the FAA?
>

The RAF.
--
JohnT

[[email protected]]

On Jun 21, 11:14*am, "JohnT" > wrote:
> "a" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 21, 10:55 am, "JohnT" > wrote:
> >> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > Hatunen writes:
>
> >> >> Cessna makes or made (I don't recall the current structure of the
> >> >> personal aircraft inudstry) some heavier aircraft than the 150s I
> >> >> used to fly. Including some Jets (the Citation line).
>
> >> > Yes. I fly a Citation X on my trusty sim all the time. But flying jets
> >> > is
> >> > expensive, and one need not do so for a CPL. Indeed, it might well be
> >> > the
> >> > other way around: CPL, then jets.
>
> >> Playing a computer game doesn't make you an expert.
> >> --
> >> JohnT
>
> > Perhaps not, John, but I expect the reality is few people flying real
> > jets in the civilian world are holding only private licenses with the
> > appropriate type rating.
>
> > Now here is a question that really displays my ignorance: what
> > certificates do military pilots hold? Are those certificates issued by
> > the FAA?
>
> The RAF.
> --
> JohnT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Is it the RAF or FAA?

http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8710-1a.pdf

See block B

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting > wrote:
> On Jun 21, 11:14Â*am, "JohnT" > wrote:
>> "a" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 21, 10:55 am, "JohnT" > wrote:
>> >> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> > Hatunen writes:
>>
>> >> >> Cessna makes or made (I don't recall the current structure of the
>> >> >> personal aircraft inudstry) some heavier aircraft than the 150s I
>> >> >> used to fly. Including some Jets (the Citation line).
>>
>> >> > Yes. I fly a Citation X on my trusty sim all the time. But flying jets
>> >> > is
>> >> > expensive, and one need not do so for a CPL. Indeed, it might well be
>> >> > the
>> >> > other way around: CPL, then jets.
>>
>> >> Playing a computer game doesn't make you an expert.
>> >> --
>> >> JohnT
>>
>> > Perhaps not, John, but I expect the reality is few people flying real
>> > jets in the civilian world are holding only private licenses with the
>> > appropriate type rating.
>>
>> > Now here is a question that really displays my ignorance: what
>> > certificates do military pilots hold? Are those certificates issued by
>> > the FAA?
>>
>> The RAF.
>> --
>> JohnT- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Is it the RAF or FAA?
>
> http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8710-1a.pdf
>
> See block B

That's to get your military training recognized by the FAA for a civilian
certificate.

Military pilots flying miltary aircraft have military "certificates", at
least in the US.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[a[_3_]]

On Jun 21, 1:54*pm, " > wrote:
> On Jun 21, 11:14*am, "JohnT" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "a" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > On Jun 21, 10:55 am, "JohnT" > wrote:
> > >> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > >> > Hatunen writes:
>
> > >> >> Cessna makes or made (I don't recall the current structure of the
> > >> >> personal aircraft inudstry) some heavier aircraft than the 150s I
> > >> >> used to fly. Including some Jets (the Citation line).
>
> > >> > Yes. I fly a Citation X on my trusty sim all the time. But flying jets
> > >> > is
> > >> > expensive, and one need not do so for a CPL. Indeed, it might well be
> > >> > the
> > >> > other way around: CPL, then jets.
>
> > >> Playing a computer game doesn't make you an expert.
> > >> --
> > >> JohnT
>
> > > Perhaps not, John, but I expect the reality is few people flying real
> > > jets in the civilian world are holding only private licenses with the
> > > appropriate type rating.
>
> > > Now here is a question that really displays my ignorance: what
> > > certificates do military pilots hold? Are those certificates issued by
> > > the FAA?
>
> > The RAF.
> > --
> > JohnT- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Is it the RAF or FAA?
>
> http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8710-1a.pdf
>
> See block B

I may be misreading that block, but it appears to be a way for a
person with military credentials of some form to apply for civilian
certification.

[Hatunen]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:24:45 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Hatunen writes:
>
>> While a heavy jet is a big sucker with a very complex panel
>> (although lighter aircraft are now sporting some pretty
>> compicated-looking electronci panels now) the principals are
>> basic for any one who has flown a plane for even a short time:
>> keep it level except coordinated turns. To land glide down to
>> near stall speed, flare at the runway apron and make it stall
>> just as the wheels tough the runway.
>
>In an emergency, a person who isn't a pilot certified for the aircraft in
>question needs to use the automation, not take the controls manually. The
>latter can easily lead to disaster.

I so note further down.

>The problem is that you need actual practice in an airplane in order to become
>good at handling the controls, or you need to find an expensive, full-motion
>simulator for the same purpose. Having experience in a vastly different
>airplane won't help you much.

Well, duh. It depends on what you're trying to do.

[Rest of obvious stuff deleted]

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

[Hatunen]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:26:29 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Hatunen writes:
>
>> Cessna makes or made (I don't recall the current structure of the
>> personal aircraft inudstry) some heavier aircraft than the 150s I
>> used to fly. Including some Jets (the Citation line).
>
>Yes. I fly a Citation X on my trusty sim all the time. But flying jets is
>expensive,

What ae you saying? That you an't afford the jet software for the
sim?

>and one need not do so for a CPL. Indeed, it might well be the
>other way around: CPL, then jets.

I'm not sure. I've forgotten. Is a commercial rating required
before you can qualify for an ATR? By the way, you don't need an
ATR to fly a jet.

I wonder if John Travolta has an ATR...?

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

[Hatunen]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 08:47:12 -0700 (PDT), a >
wrote:

>On Jun 21, 10:55*am, "JohnT" > wrote:
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > Hatunen writes:
>>
>> >> Cessna makes or made (I don't recall the current structure of the
>> >> personal aircraft inudstry) some heavier aircraft than the 150s I
>> >> used to fly. Including some Jets (the Citation line).
>>
>> > Yes. I fly a Citation X on my trusty sim all the time. But flying jets is
>> > expensive, and one need not do so for a CPL. Indeed, it might well be the
>> > other way around: CPL, then jets.
>>
>> Playing a computer game doesn't make you an expert.
>> --
>> JohnT
>
>Perhaps not, John, but I expect the reality is few people flying real
>jets in the civilian world are holding only private licenses with the
>appropriate type rating.

It's quite possible that one could have one's own private jet and
fly it with a private license. One would have to have an
endorsement for the jet, however. don't confuse flying a jet with
flying an airliner in airline service, which requires an ATR.

>Now here is a question that really displays my ignorance: what
>certificates do military pilots hold? Are those certificates issued by
>the FAA?

No, I don't believe so.

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

[[email protected]]

On Jun 21, 1:52*pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 21, 11:14*am, "JohnT" > wrote:
> >> "a" > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> >> > On Jun 21, 10:55 am, "JohnT" > wrote:
> >> >> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> >> ...
>
> >> >> > Hatunen writes:
>
> >> >> >> Cessna makes or made (I don't recall the current structure of the
> >> >> >> personal aircraft inudstry) some heavier aircraft than the 150s I
> >> >> >> used to fly. Including some Jets (the Citation line).
>
> >> >> > Yes. I fly a Citation X on my trusty sim all the time. But flying jets
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > expensive, and one need not do so for a CPL. Indeed, it might well be
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > other way around: CPL, then jets.
>
> >> >> Playing a computer game doesn't make you an expert.
> >> >> --
> >> >> JohnT
>
> >> > Perhaps not, John, but I expect the reality is few people flying real
> >> > jets in the civilian world are holding only private licenses with the
> >> > appropriate type rating.
>
> >> > Now here is a question that really displays my ignorance: what
> >> > certificates do military pilots hold? Are those certificates issued by
> >> > the FAA?
>
> >> The RAF.
> >> --
> >> JohnT- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Is it the RAF or FAA?
>
> >http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8710-1a.pdf
>
> > See block B
>
> That's to get your military training recognized by the FAA for a civilian
> certificate.

So to expand on A's question, without that recognition, can the
military pilot fly a C152 for civilian purposes or do are they
required to complete the above form and get a FAA certificate issued
by the FAA to fly in the patch?

Would seem then the original question that A asked

"Now here is a question that really displays my ignorance: what
certificates do military pilots hold? Are those certificates issued by
the FAA?"

I would have answered this question that it would be potentially FAA
issued certificate provided the military person complete the 8710?

[[email protected]]

> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 1:52Â*pm, wrote:
>> In rec.aviation.piloting > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 21, 11:14Â*am, "JohnT" > wrote:
>> >> "a" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> > On Jun 21, 10:55 am, "JohnT" > wrote:
>> >> >> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>
>> >> ...
>>
>> >> >> > Hatunen writes:
>>
>> >> >> >> Cessna makes or made (I don't recall the current structure of the
>> >> >> >> personal aircraft inudstry) some heavier aircraft than the 150s I
>> >> >> >> used to fly. Including some Jets (the Citation line).
>>
>> >> >> > Yes. I fly a Citation X on my trusty sim all the time. But flying jets
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > expensive, and one need not do so for a CPL. Indeed, it might well be
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > other way around: CPL, then jets.
>>
>> >> >> Playing a computer game doesn't make you an expert.
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> JohnT
>>
>> >> > Perhaps not, John, but I expect the reality is few people flying real
>> >> > jets in the civilian world are holding only private licenses with the
>> >> > appropriate type rating.
>>
>> >> > Now here is a question that really displays my ignorance: what
>> >> > certificates do military pilots hold? Are those certificates issued by
>> >> > the FAA?
>>
>> >> The RAF.
>> >> --
>> >> JohnT- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Is it the RAF or FAA?
>>
>> >http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8710-1a.pdf
>>
>> > See block B
>>
>> That's to get your military training recognized by the FAA for a civilian
>> certificate.
>
> So to expand on A's question, without that recognition, can the
> military pilot fly a C152 for civilian purposes or do are they
> required to complete the above form and get a FAA certificate issued
> by the FAA to fly in the patch?
>
> Would seem then the original question that A asked

Military aircraft are operated based on military "certificates".

Civilian aircraft are operated based on FAA certificates.

If a C152 has a N number, the pilot has to have a FAA certificate.

If a C152 has a USAF tail number, the pilot has to have a USAF "certificate".

> "Now here is a question that really displays my ignorance: what
> certificates do military pilots hold? Are those certificates issued by
> the FAA?"
>
> I would have answered this question that it would be potentially FAA
> issued certificate provided the military person complete the 8710?

All military "certificates" to operate military equipment are independent
of any civilian requirements to operate such equipment.

All civilian "certificates" to operate civilian equipment are independent
of any military requirements to operate such equipment.

It doesn't matter whether that equipment is an airplane, motor vehicle,
radio transmitter, or anything else that requires some sort of official
authorization to operate.

The form in question only provides a method for a military trained person
to satisfy the training requirements to apply for a civilian certificate.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[george]

On Jun 21, 11:55*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> brian whatcott writes:
> > You can fly any type of aircraft at all on a private license.
>
> > Surprise, surprise!
>
> Where's the surprise?

The surprise is that after all this time here you don't know that you
can fly aircraft up to a certain weight on a basic PPL.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 21, 4:22*pm, wrote:

> Military aircraft are operated based on military "certificates".
>
> Civilian aircraft are operated based on FAA certificates.
>
> If a C152 has a N number, the pilot has to have a FAA certificate.
>
> If a C152 has a USAF tail number, the pilot has to have a USAF "certificate".

Gotchya, thanks for this clarification.

[a[_3_]]

On Jun 21, 5:22*pm, wrote:
> > wrote:
> > On Jun 21, 1:52*pm, wrote:
> >> In rec.aviation.piloting > wrote:
>
> >> > On Jun 21, 11:14*am, "JohnT" > wrote:
> >> >> "a" > wrote in message
>
> >> ...
>
> >> >> > On Jun 21, 10:55 am, "JohnT" > wrote:
> >> >> >> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> >> >> ...
>
> >> >> >> > Hatunen writes:
>
> >> >> >> >> Cessna makes or made (I don't recall the current structure of the
> >> >> >> >> personal aircraft inudstry) some heavier aircraft than the 150s I
> >> >> >> >> used to fly. Including some Jets (the Citation line).
>
> >> >> >> > Yes. I fly a Citation X on my trusty sim all the time. But flying jets
> >> >> >> > is
> >> >> >> > expensive, and one need not do so for a CPL. Indeed, it might well be
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > other way around: CPL, then jets.
>
> >> >> >> Playing a computer game doesn't make you an expert.
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> JohnT
>
> >> >> > Perhaps not, John, but I expect the reality is few people flying real
> >> >> > jets in the civilian world are holding only private licenses with the
> >> >> > appropriate type rating.
>
> >> >> > Now here is a question that really displays my ignorance: what
> >> >> > certificates do military pilots hold? Are those certificates issued by
> >> >> > the FAA?
>
> >> >> The RAF.
> >> >> --
> >> >> JohnT- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> > Is it the RAF or FAA?
>
> >> >http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8710-1a.pdf
>
> >> > See block B
>
> >> That's to get your military training recognized by the FAA for a civilian
> >> certificate.
>
> > So to expand on A's question, without that recognition, can the
> > military pilot fly a C152 for civilian purposes or do are they
> > required to complete the above form and get a FAA certificate issued
> > by the FAA to fly in the patch?
>
> > Would seem then the original question that A asked
>
> Military aircraft are operated based on military "certificates".
>
> Civilian aircraft are operated based on FAA certificates.
>
> If a C152 has a N number, the pilot has to have a FAA certificate.
>
> If a C152 has a USAF tail number, the pilot has to have a USAF "certificate".
>
> > "Now here is a question that really displays my ignorance: what
> > certificates do military pilots hold? Are those certificates issued by
> > the FAA?"
>
> > I would have answered this question that it would be potentially FAA
> > issued certificate provided the military person complete the 8710?
>
> All military "certificates" to operate military equipment are independent
> of any civilian requirements to operate such equipment.
>
> All civilian "certificates" to operate civilian equipment are independent
> of any military requirements to operate such equipment.
>
> It doesn't matter whether that equipment is an airplane, motor vehicle,
> radio transmitter, or anything else that requires some sort of official
> authorization to operate.
>
> The form in question only provides a method for a military trained person
> to satisfy the training requirements to apply for a civilian certificate.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Thanks. I suspected that but did not know the certificate issue
extended beyond airplanes.

As an aside, I heard a talk some years ago given by a man who
commanded a bomber squadron during WW II. He had entered the Army Air
Corps as a very young man but time and events forced him to grow up
quickly.

He had an opportunity to go home on leave towards the end of the war:
remember, this was a guy who was leading a group flying bombers over
Germany.

He asked to borrow the family car: couldn't have it, he did not have a
driver's license!

We are rapidly running out of "The Greatest Generation". Should you be
lucky enough to know some of the remaining ones, remember to say
"Thank You."

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> The surprise is that after all this time here you don't know that you
> can fly aircraft up to a certain weight on a basic PPL.

But I do know that. How is that relevant here?

[Mxsmanic]

JohnT writes:

> Playing a computer game doesn't make you an expert.

Neither does flying a real-world Cessna 172.

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> As an aside, I heard a talk some years ago given by a man who
> commanded a bomber squadron during WW II. He had entered the Army Air
> Corps as a very young man but time and events forced him to grow up
> quickly.
>
> He had an opportunity to go home on leave towards the end of the war:
> remember, this was a guy who was leading a group flying bombers over
> Germany.
>
> He asked to borrow the family car: couldn't have it, he did not have a
> driver's license!

A tank driver in the war would not have been able to borrow the family
airplane, either.

[Mxsmanic]

Hatunen writes:

> It's quite possible that one could have one's own private jet and
> fly it with a private license.

Yes, but the fact remains that hardly anyone does this. John Travolta does it.
Arnold Palmer does it, too. Harrison Ford can do it, but I'm not sure if he
actually owns a jet. Lorenzo Lamas simply has a CPL, though (and I don't know
if he owns a jet, either).

Private pilots are a tiny elite to begin with. The ones who are also certified
to fly jets and have their own jets to fly are so rare that they're scarcely
on the radar, QED.

[Mxsmanic]

Hatunen writes:

> What ae you saying? That you an't afford the jet software for the
> sim?

No, I'm saying that actually flying a jet for real is extremely expensive,
which is one argument in favor of simulation (equally applicable to all types
of flying, actually).

> I'm not sure. I've forgotten. Is a commercial rating required
> before you can qualify for an ATR?

You can have an ATPL for one type of aircraft, and a CPL for another type, if
you want.

Essentially, you can have one of the following types of pilot license (in the
U.S.):

Student
Sport
Recreational
Private
Commercial
Airline Transport Pilot

and each of these can apply to any combination of various aircraft types, such
as single-engine land airplane, rotorcraft, glider, multi-engine seaplane,
whatever.

> By the way, you don't need an ATR to fly a jet.

Or even an ATPL.

> I wonder if John Travolta has an ATR...?

He has a 707 and I think at least one other jet. John Travolta is a private
pilot, single and multi-engine land airplane, with an instrument rating--not
an ATP.

[[email protected]]

a > wrote:
> On Jun 21, 5:22Â*pm, wrote:

>> It doesn't matter whether that equipment is an airplane, motor vehicle,
>> radio transmitter, or anything else that requires some sort of official
>> authorization to operate.

<snip>

> Thanks. I suspected that but did not know the certificate issue
> extended beyond airplanes.

Yep, and FYI a military drivers license has "type ratings" for the vehicles
by model you are authorized to drive as driving a hummvee is different than
driving a 5 ton cargo truck, for example.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Hatunen writes:
>
>> What ae you saying? That you an't afford the jet software for the
>> sim?
>
> No, I'm saying that actually flying a jet for real is extremely expensive,
> which is one argument in favor of simulation (equally applicable to all types
> of flying, actually).

I guess I should use MSFS for my vacation to Vegas next week and save on
the cost of flying my plane.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[RST Engineering[_2_]]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 08:30:23 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:11:10 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> All this is just a fancy way of saying that prior experience in a Cessna
>> 150 might not matter in a 767
>
>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.

I got my commercial in a Cessna 120 with a coffeegrinder radio. You
got a problem with that?

Jim

[Hatunen]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 01:51:05 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Hatunen writes:
>
>> What ae you saying? That you an't afford the jet software for the
>> sim?
>
>No, I'm saying that actually flying a jet for real is extremely expensive,
>which is one argument in favor of simulation (equally applicable to all types
>of flying, actually).
>
>> I'm not sure. I've forgotten. Is a commercial rating required
>> before you can qualify for an ATR?
>
>You can have an ATPL for one type of aircraft, and a CPL for another type, if
>you want.
>
>Essentially, you can have one of the following types of pilot license (in the
>U.S.):
>
>Student
>Sport
>Recreational
>Private
>Commercial
>Airline Transport Pilot

To be picky, they're actually certificates, not licenses.

>and each of these can apply to any combination of various aircraft types, such
>as single-engine land airplane, rotorcraft, glider, multi-engine seaplane,
>whatever.

I'm not sure what SEL planes an ATR certificate would apply to.

>> By the way, you don't need an ATR to fly a jet.
>
>Or even an ATPL.

You mean ATPC, I think.

>> I wonder if John Travolta has an ATR...?
>
>He has a 707 and I think at least one other jet. John Travolta is a private
>pilot, single and multi-engine land airplane, with an instrument rating--not
>an ATP.

Fascinating. Cite, please?


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

[Hatunen]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 01:41:26 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Hatunen writes:
>
>> It's quite possible that one could have one's own private jet and
>> fly it with a private license.
>
>Yes, but the fact remains that hardly anyone does this. John Travolta does it.
>Arnold Palmer does it, too. Harrison Ford can do it, but I'm not sure if he
>actually owns a jet. Lorenzo Lamas simply has a CPL, though (and I don't know
>if he owns a jet, either).

I'm not sure how you think that's "hardly anyone". Of course,
"hardly anyone" owns big iron, but there are a lot of smaller
business jets in private hands. And, with a properly endorese
private certificate one could rent a jet.

>Private pilots are a tiny elite to begin with. The ones who are also certified
>to fly jets and have their own jets to fly are so rare that they're scarcely
>on the radar, QED.

But they tend to be pretty big blips on that radar screen. I hold
a private certificate, myself, but don't consider myself a part
of a tiny elite. Of course, I'm not current in any aircraft at
all and I doubt I could pass the medical, so the certificate is
just and interesting item in my scrap book.

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

[Hatunen]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 01:32:20 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>JohnT writes:
>
>> Playing a computer game doesn't make you an expert.
>
>Neither does flying a real-world Cessna 172.

That depends on what you're claiming to be an expert at.

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

[Jim Logajan]

Hatunen > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>Hatunen writes:
>>> I wonder if John Travolta has an ATR...?
>>
>>He has a 707 and I think at least one other jet. John Travolta is a
>>private pilot, single and multi-engine land airplane, with an
>>instrument rating--not an ATP.
>
> Fascinating. Cite, please?

The FAA provides a web page that allows you to search their airmen
registry:

https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/

Just enter information about yourself, click on submit, then enter as much
information as you know about person you are interested in. There is only
one entry that matches last name Travolta.

The FAA has another web page to search for aircraft, but isn't very useful
for finding who owns what, since they are oftened owned indirectly via
holding companies:

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/

[Mxsmanic]

Hatunen writes:

> That depends on what you're claiming to be an expert at.

I don't claim to be an expert at anything, but I'm quite certain that I know
more about flying a 737 or 747 than the vast majority of pilots who have flown
only Cessna 172s.

[Hatunen]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:21:17 -0500, Jim Logajan
> wrote:

>Hatunen > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>Hatunen writes:
>>>> I wonder if John Travolta has an ATR...?
>>>
>>>He has a 707 and I think at least one other jet. John Travolta is a
>>>private pilot, single and multi-engine land airplane, with an
>>>instrument rating--not an ATP.
>>
>> Fascinating. Cite, please?
>
>The FAA provides a web page that allows you to search their airmen
>registry:
>
>https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/
>
>Just enter information about yourself, click on submit, then enter as much
>information as you know about person you are interested in. There is only
>one entry that matches last name Travolta.

That page shows street and city as required entries. I don't know
thm so I went no further.

>The FAA has another web page to search for aircraft, but isn't very useful
>for finding who owns what, since they are oftened owned indirectly via
>holding companies:
>
>http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/

But thanks for that one. I've been trying to remember that
website is. It's kind of interesting to look up the old aircraft
I flew in. I see Piper J-3 Cub N3609K that I learned to first fly
in here in Tucson in 1966 is now owned by someone in Minnesota. I
was a one-fourth owner. One of my co-owners managed to encounter
an invisible dust devil on the runway on his first solo landing
and the plane was written off by our insurer as totaled. The
plane was sort of flyable, and the insurance company sold it to
someone who got a special ferry permit and it flew out of our
lives.



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

[Mxsmanic]

Hatunen writes:

> To be picky, they're actually certificates, not licenses.

Same thing.

> I'm not sure what SEL planes an ATR certificate would apply to.

One can have an ATP for all sorts of aircraft, and the ATP need not apply to
all. For example, you can be an ATP for multi-engine land airplanes, but only
a PPL for helicopters or seaplanes.

> You mean ATPC, I think.

No, I mean ATP license(/certificate), ATPL.

> Fascinating. Cite, please?

Pilot certificates are public records.

[Mxsmanic]

Hatunen writes:

> That page shows street and city as required entries. I don't know
> thm so I went no further.

You can enter just a name.

[Jim Logajan]

Hatunen > wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:21:17 -0500, Jim Logajan
> > wrote:
>
>>Hatunen > wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>Hatunen writes:
>>>>> I wonder if John Travolta has an ATR...?
>>>>
>>>>He has a 707 and I think at least one other jet. John Travolta is a
>>>>private pilot, single and multi-engine land airplane, with an
>>>>instrument rating--not an ATP.
>>>
>>> Fascinating. Cite, please?
>>
>>The FAA provides a web page that allows you to search their airmen
>>registry:
>>
>>https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/
>>
>>Just enter information about yourself, click on submit, then enter as
>>much information as you know about person you are interested in. There
>>is only one entry that matches last name Travolta.
>
> That page shows street and city as required entries. I don't know
> thm so I went no further.

You don't know your own street and city? ;-)

You put YOUR identifying info in that first page, not that of the airmen
you want to look up. If you don't want to ID yourself to the FAA (I don't
see the big deal) that's your call.

Street and city of the airmen you are interested in is not required when
you get to the query page itself. For example, I searched for last name
"Hatunen" and came across just one entry, with an issue date of
6/26/1968. Yours, perchance?

>>The FAA has another web page to search for aircraft, but isn't very
>>useful for finding who owns what, since they are oftened owned
>>indirectly via holding companies:
>>
>>http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/
>
> But thanks for that one. I've been trying to remember that
> website is. It's kind of interesting to look up the old aircraft
> I flew in. I see Piper J-3 Cub N3609K that I learned to first fly
> in here in Tucson in 1966 is now owned by someone in Minnesota. I
> was a one-fourth owner. One of my co-owners managed to encounter
> an invisible dust devil on the runway on his first solo landing
> and the plane was written off by our insurer as totaled. The
> plane was sort of flyable, and the insurance company sold it to
> someone who got a special ferry permit and it flew out of our
> lives.

You're welcome.

[Hatunen]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 04:58:56 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Hatunen writes:
>
>> To be picky, they're actually certificates, not licenses.
>
>Same thing.
>
>> I'm not sure what SEL planes an ATR certificate would apply to.
>
>One can have an ATP for all sorts of aircraft, and the ATP need not apply to
>all. For example, you can be an ATP for multi-engine land airplanes, but only
>a PPL for helicopters or seaplanes.
>
>> You mean ATPC, I think.
>
>No, I mean ATP license(/certificate), ATPL.

It's not a license.

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

[Hatunen]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 04:35:20 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Hatunen writes:
>
>> That depends on what you're claiming to be an expert at.
>
>I don't claim to be an expert at anything, but I'm quite certain that I know
>more about flying a 737 or 747 than the vast majority of pilots who have flown
>only Cessna 172s.

Ohhhh, I see. So you're an expert?

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

[JohnT[_3_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> JohnT writes:
>
>> Playing a computer game doesn't make you an expert.
>
> Neither does flying a real-world Cessna 172.

Which, of course, you have never ever done.

--
JohnT

[JohnT[_3_]]

"Hatunen" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 04:35:20 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
>>Hatunen writes:
>>
>>> That depends on what you're claiming to be an expert at.
>>
>>I don't claim to be an expert at anything, but I'm quite certain that I
>>know
>>more about flying a 737 or 747 than the vast majority of pilots who have
>>flown
>>only Cessna 172s.
>
> Ohhhh, I see. So you're an expert?
>

He is an expert at playing computer games in his cupboard in Paris.
--
JohnT

[William Black[_1_]]

On 22/06/10 03:35, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Hatunen writes:
>
>> That depends on what you're claiming to be an expert at.
>
> I don't claim to be an expert at anything, but I'm quite certain that I know
> more about flying a 737 or 747 than the vast majority of pilots who have flown
> only Cessna 172s.

Have you ever been at the controls of a real aircraft when it has been
in the air?


--
William Black

These are the gilded popinjays and murderous assassins of Perfidious
Albion and they are about their Queen's business. Any man who impedes
their passage does so at his own peril.

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> As far as that goes, the FAA has no control over the certification or
> inspection of military aircraft, in any way. They just have to put up with
> the fact that the military does what they want with the aircraft they own.

The FAA allows the military to use the national airspace and waives its
regulations at its discretion ... not the other way around. Control over
aviation in the United States is civilian, not military. Restricted
airspaces, for example, are set aside by the FAA for use by the military; the
military does not give airspace to the FAA, because the military doesn't own
any airspace. Likewise, the FAA has granted a waiver for airspeeds above 250
KIAS under 10,000 feet to the military under certain circumstances, and allows
MARSA under other defined circumstances.

The United States is governed by civilian law, not martial law. The military
cannot simply do whatever it wants.

[Mxsmanic]

Hatunen writes:

> Ohhhh, I see. So you're an expert?

One scarcely needs to be anything approaching an expert just to know more than
some of the pilots here. I have non-zero knowledge of certain things, which
beats the zero knowledge that I'm up against in many cases.

[Mxsmanic]

William Black writes:

> Have you ever been at the controls of a real aircraft when it has been
> in the air?

No.

[Mxsmanic]

JohnT writes:

> Which, of course, you have never ever done.

In simulation, often. In real life, never.

[Mxsmanic]

Hatunen writes:

> It's not a license.

A license is permission to do something. A certificate attests to something.
So it is both a license (because it allows a person to fly) and a certificate
(because it attests to that authorization).

No nanoscopic angels dance upon it, however.

[William Black[_1_]]

On 22/06/10 12:57, Mxsmanic wrote:
> William Black writes:
>
>> Have you ever been at the controls of a real aircraft when it has been
>> in the air?
>
> No.

End of story really, she has...

--
William Black

These are the gilded popinjays and murderous assassins of Perfidious
Albion and they are about their Queen's business. Any man who impedes
their passage does so at his own peril.

[Mxsmanic]

William Black writes:

> End of story really, she has...

That's an extremely simplistic viewpoint. It's a bit like saying that anyone
who has ever driven any type of car can automatically drive any type of road
vehicle, while simultaneously saying that anyone who hasn't been behind the
wheel of a car cannot possible know how to drive one. Both notions are
baseless.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 22, 8:33*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> William Black writes:
> > End of story really, *she has...
>
> That's an extremely simplistic viewpoint. It's a bit like saying that anyone
> who has ever driven any type of car can automatically drive any type of road
> vehicle, while simultaneously saying that anyone who hasn't been behind the
> wheel of a car cannot possible know how to drive one. Both notions are
> baseless.

Dont' you do the same thing saying you simulating flying is the same
as flying a real plane??????????

So in other words everything you post is baseless since you have never
flown a real plane?????????

[William Black[_1_]]

On 22/06/10 14:33, Mxsmanic wrote:
> William Black writes:
>
>> End of story really, she has...
>
> That's an extremely simplistic viewpoint. It's a bit like saying that anyone
> who has ever driven any type of car can automatically drive any type of road
> vehicle, while simultaneously saying that anyone who hasn't been behind the
> wheel of a car cannot possible know how to drive one. Both notions are
> baseless.

No, it's like saying that anyone who has driven any car knows a great
deal more about driving than someone who has played driving games on a
personal computer, no matter how sophisticated.

Now I don't know about where you live, which I seem to remember is a
cupboard in Paris, but here they don't let you take your driving test
on your PC. They tend to insist that you get your arse in a car and
drive one around town to make sure you do actually know what you're doing.

Same with aircraft, they don't actually issue a pilots license to
anyone unless they actually get in an aircraft and show someone that
they can fly the bloody thing.


--
William Black

These are the gilded popinjays and murderous assassins of Perfidious
Albion and they are about their Queen's business. Any man who impedes
their passage does so at his own peril.

[Mxsmanic]

William Black writes:

> No, it's like saying that anyone who has driven any car knows a great
> deal more about driving than someone who has played driving games on a
> personal computer, no matter how sophisticated.

But that is also an incorrect statement.

If only real flying experience were important, then nobody would ever use
simulators. In fact, if someone wants to fly a 747, he is better off flying a
simulator of a 747 than he is flying a Cessna 152. While the simulation isn't
the same as flying a 747 for real, it's a lot closer than the real-world
experience of a Cessna 172 would be.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> The United States is governed by civilian law, not martial law. The military
> cannot simply do whatever it wants.

No one but you ever even implied such a thing.

The military has its own system for operation and maintenance of military
equipment totally separate from the civilian system.

During normal times, when the miltary operates in the civilian envirionment,
the miltitary obeys civilian rules, e.g. a military convoy on civilian
roads obeys the civilian speed limit.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> William Black writes:
>
>> No, it's like saying that anyone who has driven any car knows a great
>> deal more about driving than someone who has played driving games on a
>> personal computer, no matter how sophisticated.
>
> But that is also an incorrect statement.

No, it is not unless the simulator is so realistic it is impossible to
tell the difference between the simulation and reality and such simulators
do not exist.

> If only real flying experience were important, then nobody would ever use
> simulators. In fact, if someone wants to fly a 747, he is better off flying a
> simulator of a 747 than he is flying a Cessna 152. While the simulation isn't
> the same as flying a 747 for real, it's a lot closer than the real-world
> experience of a Cessna 172 would be.

Delusional tunnel vision.

Flying a real airplane requires a broad set of skills and knowledge which
is why in the real world the individual skills are taught in varied
environments best suited for teaching the task at hand, i.e. the cockpit of
a C172, a desk, a light twin, a 747 simulator, a real 747, to name just a few.

Each has its own part in generating the total sum of skills.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[JohnT[_3_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> JohnT writes:
>
>> Which, of course, you have never ever done.
>
> In simulation, often. In real life, never.

It is a computer game which you play.
--
JohnT

[[email protected]]

On Jun 22, 9:31*am, wrote:

> No, it is not unless the simulator is so realistic it is impossible to
> tell the difference between the simulation and reality and such simulators
> do not exist.

May want to clarify this Jim to Mx levels.

MSFS is not realistic or even close to being realistic.

I'd think (I have never been in one) though a full motion simulator
probably would be as real as it gets since you get the physical
feedback not felt in a chair in front of a desktop computer

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> No, it is not unless the simulator is so realistic it is impossible to
> tell the difference between the simulation and reality and such simulators
> do not exist.

The simulator need only provide more information than no information, which
every simulator does. The simulator provides information specific to an
aircraft that real-world experience in a different aircraft does not.

> Flying a real airplane requires a broad set of skills and knowledge which
> is why in the real world the individual skills are taught in varied
> environments best suited for teaching the task at hand, i.e. the cockpit of
> a C172, a desk, a light twin, a 747 simulator, a real 747, to name just a few.

There is knowledge (and sometimes skill) specific to individual aircraft that
must be acquired before that aircraft can be successfully flown. The specifics
of a 747 are not learned by someone flying a C172.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 22, 10:26*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> There is knowledge (and sometimes skill) specific to individual aircraft that
> must be acquired before that aircraft can be successfully flown. The specifics
> of a 747 are not learned by someone flying a C172.

Then you apparently agree that the SPECIFICS of a 747 are not learned
using MSFS.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Then you apparently agree that the SPECIFICS of a 747 are not learned
> using MSFS.

Many of the specifics of the 747 and many other aircraft can easily be learned
by "flying" the simulated versions in MSFS, and particularly by flying
high-realism add-ons. It's essentially no different from reading the manual to
learn the systems, except that it provides a kind of "hands-on" experience
that makes learning more fun.

You would not get these specifics from flying a Cessna 172, even in real life
(nor would you get them from flying only the C172 in the sim).

[William Black[_1_]]

On 22/06/10 15:06, Mxsmanic wrote:
> William Black writes:
>
>> No, it's like saying that anyone who has driven any car knows a great
>> deal more about driving than someone who has played driving games on a
>> personal computer, no matter how sophisticated.
>
> But that is also an incorrect statement.

Nope.

It's true.

> If only real flying experience were important, then nobody would ever use
> simulators.

But that's NOT what I said you stupid child.

That you deliberately misrepresent me says more about about you than
about anything else.

In fact, if someone wants to fly a 747, he is better off flying a
> simulator of a 747 than he is flying a Cessna 152. While the simulation isn't
> the same as flying a 747 for real, it's a lot closer than the real-world
> experience of a Cessna 172 would be.

They won't give anyone a license to fly a plane unless they've actually
flown a plane.

The training to fly a plane starts with the little ones and works up.

Everyone starts with something small with a fan on the front and works
up, even the fast jet jockeys in the military.

Nobody does it your way because they'd end up with an altimeter that
reads less than zero for a very short period of time...


--
William Black

These are the gilded popinjays and murderous assassins of Perfidious
Albion and they are about their Queen's business. Any man who impedes
their passage does so at his own peril.

[Hatunen]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:06:38 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>William Black writes:
>
>> No, it's like saying that anyone who has driven any car knows a great
>> deal more about driving than someone who has played driving games on a
>> personal computer, no matter how sophisticated.
>
>But that is also an incorrect statement.
>
>If only real flying experience were important, then nobody would ever use
>simulators. In fact, if someone wants to fly a 747, he is better off flying a
>simulator of a 747 than he is flying a Cessna 152. >
>
While the simulation isn't
>the same as flying a 747 for real, it's a lot closer than the real-world
>experience of a Cessna 172 would be.

But you're still required to actually fly a plane to get
certified.

Tell us: does the simulator simulate a stall?

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

[Hatunen]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:42:52 +0100, "JohnT"
> wrote:

>
>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> JohnT writes:
>>
>>> Which, of course, you have never ever done.
>>
>> In simulation, often. In real life, never.
>
>It is a computer game which you play.

In some fairness, it should be said that some computer simulators
perform pretty well, but it also has to be said that a simulation
on a PC can never be very realistic. It is far different sitting
in a real cockpit with a real yoke and real pedals operating real
ailerons, elevators and rudders. Nor can it realistically
simulate the feeling of aiming the plane at a real runway and
trying your best to grease the wheels on, but instead coming in a
bit high and trying to force the plne down to the runway without
bouncing too much. A PC can never simulate that feeling in the
pit of your stomache when teh plane hits a downdraft and loses
2000 feet just like that.

A PC can not give you the feel of a plane as it is slowed to
stall speen with the stall warning blaring and the plane
shuddering a little. Andalthough they no longer teach it, a PC
cannot simulate the quiet but scary feeling f being in a spin and
the slight panic as you try to bring it out of that spin.

And the PC can not simulate the visual context of a real plane
where the instruments are spread out; you'd have to keep your
nose pretty close to the monitor to simulate this.

As to Mixie's apparent idea that somehow his PC is a good
emulation of a big-time simulator, where the cockpit layout is
very close to the appearance of the craft's real cockpit and
where the hydraulics on the simulator can create most of the
bumps and jerks of real flight, that is downright ludicrous.



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

[Mxsmanic]

Hatunen writes:

> But you're still required to actually fly a plane to get
> certified.

That is a regulatory rather than a practical restriction. And you only need a
very small number of hours of flight in a real aircraft.

In the future, I suspect that pilots will be trained without any time in a
real aircraft, mainly to save money.

> Tell us: does the simulator simulate a stall?

Yes.

[Mxsmanic]

Hatunen writes:

> Nor can it realistically
> simulate the feeling of aiming the plane at a real runway and
> trying your best to grease the wheels on, but instead coming in a
> bit high and trying to force the plne down to the runway without
> bouncing too much.

Actually it does that rather well.

> A PC can never simulate that feeling in the
> pit of your stomache when teh plane hits a downdraft and loses
> 2000 feet just like that.

Like many private pilots, you think of flight in terms of physical sensations.
This is only one of many possible interpretations, however.

> A PC can not give you the feel of a plane as it is slowed to
> stall speen with the stall warning blaring and the plane
> shuddering a little. Andalthough they no longer teach it, a PC
> cannot simulate the quiet but scary feeling f being in a spin and
> the slight panic as you try to bring it out of that spin.

Since they no longer teach it, doesn't that mean that there are no longer any
Real Pilots? How can you know anything about a spin without spinning in a
real aircraft?

> And the PC can not simulate the visual context of a real plane
> where the instruments are spread out; you'd have to keep your
> nose pretty close to the monitor to simulate this.

Actually, the PC can do this, with the right add-ons.

> As to Mixie's apparent idea that somehow his PC is a good
> emulation of a big-time simulator, where the cockpit layout is
> very close to the appearance of the craft's real cockpit and
> where the hydraulics on the simulator can create most of the
> bumps and jerks of real flight, that is downright ludicrous.

I guess you haven't been flying or simming much recently. The cockpit layout
of the sim is realistic enough that you may not recognize it as a sim at first
glance. It's not difficult to display photo-realistic visuals, after all.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 22, 11:06*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> You would not get these specifics from flying a Cessna 172, even in real life
> (nor would you get them from flying only the C172 in the sim).

But you never been in a real plane. How do you know this?????????

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> As far as that goes, the FAA has no control over the certification or
>> inspection of military aircraft, in any way. They just have to put up
>> with the fact that the military does what they want with the aircraft
>> they own.
>
> With one clarification the above matches what I have learned. The
> clarification: when military aircraft fly in U.S. airspace, except for
> military emergencies related to national defense, they are indeed
> subject to FAA flight rules. E.g. hemispheric flight altitude rules, VFR
> rules, airspace requirements, and so on. Flight safety would be highly
> compromised if there was not a single final authority.

Indeed, they follow FAA requirements to how they use the airspace.

Note in my comments, I was carefull to say that the FAA does not have any
control over _certification or inspection_ of military aircraft.

I guess when I said "the military does what they want with the aircraft they
own" that could be interpreted to how and where they fly them in FAA
airspace, but I was intending to speak to the physical aircraft, not how
they are flown.
--
Jim in NC

[george]

On Jun 23, 5:21*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> In the future, I suspect that pilots will be trained without any time in a
> real aircraft, mainly to save money.

Just when you think he couldn't get any sillier he does.

[Hatunen]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:26:18 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Hatunen writes:
>
>> Nor can it realistically
>> simulate the feeling of aiming the plane at a real runway and
>> trying your best to grease the wheels on, but instead coming in a
>> bit high and trying to force the plne down to the runway without
>> bouncing too much.
>
>Actually it does that rather well.

Your computer chair bounces?
As us8ual you deleted an important part of my post....

"In some fairness, it should be said that some computer
simulators perform pretty well, but it also has to be said that a
simulation on a PC can never be very realistic. It is far
different sitting in a real cockpit with a real yoke and real
pedals operating real ailerons, elevators and rudders."

.... which makes it clear I am talking about PC simulators.

>> A PC can never simulate that feeling in the
>> pit of your stomache when teh plane hits a downdraft and loses
>> 2000 feet just like that.
>
>Like many private pilots, you think of flight in terms of physical sensations.
>This is only one of many possible interpretations, however.

You've never flown a plane. I have. The physical sensations can
be important when they occur, as they can distract from clear
thinking. A stall simulated on a PC can not ever accurately
convey the, um, thrill, of a full stall (especially your first
full stall as a student pilot) as you keep pulling back on the
yoke/joystick pointing the noise higher and higher as the stall
warning screams and then, WHAM!, the nose of the plane is pointed
downward, seemingly straight down at the ground, gaining speed
rapidly. The first time I did tht for my isntructor it scared the
crap out of me. (The plane itself is important here; our old
Piper J-3 would snap a stall break like you wouldn't believe,
real Six Flags sort of thing, while the Cessnas are a bit more
forgiving, and some light planes are designed to not break in a
stall at all but to simply lsoe altitude.)

>
>> A PC can not give you the feel of a plane as it is slowed to
>> stall speen with the stall warning blaring and the plane
>> shuddering a little. Andalthough they no longer teach it, a PC
>> cannot simulate the quiet but scary feeling f being in a spin and
>> the slight panic as you try to bring it out of that spin.
>
>Since they no longer teach it, doesn't that mean that there are no longer any
>Real Pilots? How can you know anything about a spin without spinning in a
>real aircraft?
>
>> And the PC can not simulate the visual context of a real plane
>> where the instruments are spread out; you'd have to keep your
>> nose pretty close to the monitor to simulate this.
>
>Actually, the PC can do this, with the right add-ons.
>
>> As to Mixie's apparent idea that somehow his PC is a good
>> emulation of a big-time simulator, where the cockpit layout is
>> very close to the appearance of the craft's real cockpit and
>> where the hydraulics on the simulator can create most of the
>> bumps and jerks of real flight, that is downright ludicrous.
>
>I guess you haven't been flying or simming much recently. The cockpit layout
>of the sim is realistic enough that you may not recognize it as a sim at first
>glance. It's not difficult to display photo-realistic visuals, after all.

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

[Hatunen]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:26:18 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Hatunen writes:


>> Andalthough they no longer teach it, a PC
>> cannot simulate the quiet but scary feeling f being in a spin and
>> the slight panic as you try to bring it out of that spin.
>
>Since they no longer teach it, doesn't that mean that there are no longer any
>Real Pilots? How can you know anything about a spin without spinning in a
>real aircraft?

Well, my instructor, who insisted on teaching spins to me
although no longer required for certification said there weren't
any more real pilots.

I guess you don't have to know how to recover from a spin if you
don't spin.

>> And the PC can not simulate the visual context of a real plane
>> where the instruments are spread out; you'd have to keep your
>> nose pretty close to the monitor to simulate this.
>
>Actually, the PC can do this, with the right add-ons.

Like an add-on dual monitor? I fail to see how a PC can
realistically give the sensation of an instrument panel over two
feet across.

>> As to Mixie's apparent idea that somehow his PC is a good
>> emulation of a big-time simulator, where the cockpit layout is
>> very close to the appearance of the craft's real cockpit and
>> where the hydraulics on the simulator can create most of the
>> bumps and jerks of real flight, that is downright ludicrous.
>
>I guess you haven't been flying or simming much recently. The cockpit layout
>of the sim is realistic enough that you may not recognize it as a sim at first
>glance. It's not difficult to display photo-realistic visuals, after all.

Unless your computer chair can bounce up and down and lean left
and right, it's not the same.

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

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> No, it is not unless the simulator is so realistic it is impossible to
>> tell the difference between the simulation and reality and such simulators
>> do not exist.
>
> The simulator need only provide more information than no information, which
> every simulator does. The simulator provides information specific to an
> aircraft that real-world experience in a different aircraft does not.

Delusional babble.

>> Flying a real airplane requires a broad set of skills and knowledge which
>> is why in the real world the individual skills are taught in varied
>> environments best suited for teaching the task at hand, i.e. the cockpit of
>> a C172, a desk, a light twin, a 747 simulator, a real 747, to name just a few.
>
> There is knowledge (and sometimes skill) specific to individual aircraft that
> must be acquired before that aircraft can be successfully flown.

True, and in most cases, if the aircraft are anywhere near similar, a reading
of the aircraft manual will suffice for that.

And I've actually done that, have you?

> The specifics
> of a 747 are not learned by someone flying a C172.

True, but no one but you and your tunnel vision of what is required to fly
an airplane is saying that.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Hatunen writes:
>
>> But you're still required to actually fly a plane to get
>> certified.
>
> That is a regulatory rather than a practical restriction. And you only need a
> very small number of hours of flight in a real aircraft.
>
> In the future, I suspect that pilots will be trained without any time in a
> real aircraft, mainly to save money.

Delusional.

>> Tell us: does the simulator simulate a stall?
>
> Yes.

Sure it does, including the feeling of falling when the stall breaks and
the increased G load as you pull out.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Hatunen writes:

>> Nor can it realistically
>> simulate the feeling of aiming the plane at a real runway and
>> trying your best to grease the wheels on, but instead coming in a
>> bit high and trying to force the plne down to the runway without
>> bouncing too much.
>
> Actually it does that rather well.

Delusional.

The view looks like a flat screen and there is no peripherial view.

>> A PC can never simulate that feeling in the
>> pit of your stomache when teh plane hits a downdraft and loses
>> 2000 feet just like that.
>
> Like many private pilots, you think of flight in terms of physical sensations.

The physical sensations of a downdraft are real in real airplanes and you
have to learn to deal with them to fly real airplanes.

>> A PC can not give you the feel of a plane as it is slowed to
>> stall speen with the stall warning blaring and the plane
>> shuddering a little. Andalthough they no longer teach it, a PC
>> cannot simulate the quiet but scary feeling f being in a spin and
>> the slight panic as you try to bring it out of that spin.
>
> Since they no longer teach it, doesn't that mean that there are no longer any
> Real Pilots? How can you know anything about a spin without spinning in a
> real aircraft?

Wrong.

Yes spins are still taught, they are just not a requirement for private.

>> And the PC can not simulate the visual context of a real plane
>> where the instruments are spread out; you'd have to keep your
>> nose pretty close to the monitor to simulate this.
>
> Actually, the PC can do this, with the right add-ons.

Sure if you have a 360 degree wrap around display.

Do you?

>> As to Mixie's apparent idea that somehow his PC is a good
>> emulation of a big-time simulator, where the cockpit layout is
>> very close to the appearance of the craft's real cockpit and
>> where the hydraulics on the simulator can create most of the
>> bumps and jerks of real flight, that is downright ludicrous.
>
> I guess you haven't been flying or simming much recently. The cockpit layout
> of the sim is realistic enough that you may not recognize it as a sim at first
> glance. It's not difficult to display photo-realistic visuals, after all.

Since it is all on a small (compared to even a C150 panel) 2 dimensional flat
screen, only someone delusional could not immediately tell it is a display.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> True, and in most cases, if the aircraft are anywhere near similar, a reading
> of the aircraft manual will suffice for that.

Why would reading the manual be sufficient, but simulation not?

> And I've actually done that, have you?

Yes, I have.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Sure it does, including the feeling of falling when the stall breaks and
> the increased G load as you pull out.

It doesn't simulate motion. Motion is only one small part of flying.

[Mxsmanic]

Hatunen writes:

> Your computer chair bounces?

No, but the view out the window and the instruments tell me all that I need to
know. Vision is the most important sense in flying by far.

> ... which makes it clear I am talking about PC simulators.

PC simulators do a good job, too.

> You've never flown a plane. I have.

Thank you for proving my point.

> The physical sensations can be important when they occur, as they can
> distract from clear thinking.

Yes, but much of their effect is a function of personality as well.

> A stall simulated on a PC can not ever accurately
> convey the, um, thrill, of a full stall (especially your first
> full stall as a student pilot) as you keep pulling back on the
> yoke/joystick pointing the noise higher and higher as the stall
> warning screams and then, WHAM!, the nose of the plane is pointed
> downward, seemingly straight down at the ground, gaining speed
> rapidly.

Yes, I know. But I'm not a thrillseeker, and I don't need thrills to learn how
to fly.

> The first time I did tht for my isntructor it scared the
> crap out of me.

Did you know what to expect?

[Mxsmanic]

Hatunen writes:

> Well, my instructor, who insisted on teaching spins to me
> although no longer required for certification said there weren't
> any more real pilots.

It's a judgment call. Spin practice is no longer required because more pilots
were dying from spins during training than were dying from spins during flight
thereafter. The cure was worse than the disease. So the emphasis was shifted
to avoiding spins, rather than recovering from them, at least for PPLs.

> I guess you don't have to know how to recover from a spin if you
> don't spin.

Exactly. It's safer to practice avoiding spins, but to only learn the theory
of spin recovery.

> Like an add-on dual monitor?

No. Look up TrackIR.

> I fail to see how a PC can
> realistically give the sensation of an instrument panel over two
> feet across.

See above.

> Unless your computer chair can bounce up and down and lean left
> and right, it's not the same.

As I've said, a lot of private pilots seem to give physical sensations
priority over everything else. But there's a lot more to flying than a
roller-coaster ride. I don't care much for the physical sensations myself,
although takeoff and landing are kind of pleasant if they are smooth.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The view looks like a flat screen and there is no peripherial view.

Look up TrackIR.

> The physical sensations of a downdraft are real in real airplanes and you
> have to learn to deal with them to fly real airplanes.

That's about 0.000001% of what you have to learn to deal with to fly
airplanes, and a great deal of what you have to learn (the great majority, in
fact) has nothing to do with physical sensations.

Maybe if you're puttering around in a biplane you might depend a lot on
sensations. But in a 747 you don't use them at all. Large aircraft are flown
by the numbers, for the most part.

> Yes spins are still taught, they are just not a requirement for private.

So spins are not taught for a PPL, QED.

> Sure if you have a 360 degree wrap around display.

No, you can also have a display that changes what it shows based on your head
movements. It works extremely well.

> Do you?

I don't care enough about the virtual cockpit view to use such add-ons. I can
"turn my head" left and right with a twist of the joystick if I need to look
around. I fly in IMC a fair amount so often there's nothing to look at except
the instrument panel.

> Since it is all on a small (compared to even a C150 panel) 2 dimensional flat
> screen, only someone delusional could not immediately tell it is a display.

It can fool both pilots and non-pilots. Sims have come a long way since the
old days.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> True, and in most cases, if the aircraft are anywhere near similar, a reading
>> of the aircraft manual will suffice for that.
>
> Why would reading the manual be sufficient, but simulation not?

There you go making stuff up again and misrepresenting what people have said.

What I said was "..if the aircraft are anywhere near similar, a reading of
the aircraft manual will suffice for that."

Where did I say anything about simulators?

But more to the point that you tried to diverge to, if reading the manual
is sufficient, why would you then need a simulator of any kind?


>> And I've actually done that, have you?
>
> Yes, I have.

Are you deliberately lying or are you in another of your delusional states?

You have said time and again you have never flown any airplane, much less
a different model after a read of the manual for the new airplane.

And before you go off on some other tangent about how safe it is to fly
an aircraft one has never flown before based only on a read of the manual,
in both cases there was an instructor aboard and in both cases all the
instructor did was ask me to demonstrate things.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Sure it does, including the feeling of falling when the stall breaks and
>> the increased G load as you pull out.
>
> It doesn't simulate motion. Motion is only one small part of flying.

The G changes are a big part of a stall and something one needs to learn
to essentially ignore which can only be done by actually doing it.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Hatunen writes:
>
>> Your computer chair bounces?
>
> No, but the view out the window and the instruments tell me all that I need to
> know. Vision is the most important sense in flying by far.

Delusional babble.

It is important to learn how to handle ALL the sensory inputs, especially
the ones that tend to cause you to redo your breakfast.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Hatunen writes:
>
>> Well, my instructor, who insisted on teaching spins to me
>> although no longer required for certification said there weren't
>> any more real pilots.
>
> It's a judgment call. Spin practice is no longer required

Wrong.

Spins are not required for private and below.

<snip delusional babble about small, flat screens looking just like a real
airplane panel>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> The view looks like a flat screen and there is no peripherial view.
>
> Look up TrackIR.

I have.

It is still a flat screen and there is no peripherial view.

To say otherwise is a lie or a delusion.

>> The physical sensations of a downdraft are real in real airplanes and you
>> have to learn to deal with them to fly real airplanes.
>
> That's about 0.000001% of what you have to learn to deal with to fly
> airplanes, and a great deal of what you have to learn (the great majority, in
> fact) has nothing to do with physical sensations.

It is a lot more than 0.000001% of what you have to learn and you have to
learn it to fly real airplanes.

<snip delusional babble about how realistic small, flat screes with no
peripheral view are>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> But more to the point that you tried to diverge to, if reading the manual
> is sufficient, why would you then need a simulator of any kind?

You wouldn't, but a simulator is more fun.

> You have said time and again you have never flown any airplane, much less
> a different model after a read of the manual for the new airplane.

I simply meant that I've actually read the manufacturer's documentation for
the 747 (well, parts of it).

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The G changes are a big part of a stall and something one needs to learn
> to essentially ignore which can only be done by actually doing it.

You can ignore it without any prior practice. It's a question of personality
and mood and mindset.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> It is important to learn how to handle ALL the sensory inputs, especially
> the ones that tend to cause you to redo your breakfast.

It's important to learn to ignore them. Some people are better at this than
others.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > It's a judgment call. Spin practice is no longer required
>
> Wrong.
>
> Spins are not required for private and below.

Hmm.

I'm gradually learning to put people in the killfile. I just have to learn to
keep them there. With some people, giving them another chance is just a waste
of time.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> But more to the point that you tried to diverge to, if reading the manual
>> is sufficient, why would you then need a simulator of any kind?
>
> You wouldn't, but a simulator is more fun.

Nope, and to be of any use the simulator has to fully simulate the cockpit
of the real thing, like the flaps being a lever on the floor, for example.


>
>> You have said time and again you have never flown any airplane, much less
>> a different model after a read of the manual for the new airplane.
>
> I simply meant that I've actually read the manufacturer's documentation for
> the 747 (well, parts of it).

What you implied was you flew a new model of airplane with reading the
manual as your only instruction so your statement was deliberate deception.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> The G changes are a big part of a stall and something one needs to learn
>> to essentially ignore which can only be done by actually doing it.
>
> You can ignore it without any prior practice. It's a question of personality
> and mood and mindset.

Delusional nonsense.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> It is important to learn how to handle ALL the sensory inputs, especially
>> the ones that tend to cause you to redo your breakfast.
>
> It's important to learn to ignore them.

No ****?

I just said that several times now.

> Some people are better at this than
> others.

Yep, some people can do it rather quickly and others like you never can.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Wingnut]

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

Ah, the Cessna 152 strawman again. I was wondering when that would show
up. First sentence of non-quoted text as it just so happens -- which
means one of my co-workers owes me ten bucks. :-)

> Just as experience in driving a Yugo doesn't necessarily help in
> driving a Formula 1 car.

Experience driving versus never having sat behind a wheel should make
some difference. It's plain old common sense!

> 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.

There will be some commonalities. Zero experience in a plane will make
you worse than having had some experience. I don't claim you'd be
proficient; just that you wouldn't actually be *less* capable than
someone who knew *nothing*. Again, common sense.

> 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.

First of all, we weren't talking "pilots of small private aircraft", at
least not until you came along and introduced that particular strawman.

Second, they may not be able to do a good job, but the total non-pilot
will surely do a worse job.

Except in your earlier, specific scenario of being talked through a
procedure from the ground, where anyone with basic comprehension skills
will probably do about as well. (Someone with piloting experience might
more quickly be able to find and recognize particular controls or
instrument readouts though, and will be able to understand a more compact
jargon, so he may be a bit faster though other than that only as good as
the quality of the ground instructions.)

>> 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.

Someone who says that "the less experience a person has at a skilled
task, the poorer their odds of completing it successfully" is
"uninformed"? In what universe? In the one where I live there is this
thing called a "learning curve". It climbs steeply at first, then bends
over, but it's monotonic increasing, and it indicates task performance as
a function of experience. Performance improves with experience, slowing
down and eventually plateauing. For some things (e.g. Tic-Tac-Toe) it
plateaus fast and low; for others (e.g. chess) it plateaus much more
slowly and higher, because the thing being learned is more complicated.
But it does not actually dip down at any point.

Since this basic fact (learning curves are monotonic increasing) is
disputed by you, I'm forced to conclude that you're insane and thus not
really worth debating with any further.

[Wingnut]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 05:01:37 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Jun 20, 4:30Â*am, Wingnut > wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:11:10 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> > All this is just a fancy way of saying that prior experience in a
>> > Cessna 150 might not matter in a 767
>>
>> 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.
>
> I believe the lady herself said during a TV interview that her
> experience was restricted to light aircraft. The type "Cessna" was
> mentioned.

This statement, if true, remains irrelevant. Learning curves are
monotonic increasing. She cannot be actually worse than someone with zero
piloting experience and is probably at least slightly better.

Furthermore, the original post to this thread did not state anything of
the sort, only that she had a commercial pilot's license, which as
another person pointed out normally includes non-zero experience with
larger craft.

[Hatunen]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 01:16:41 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Hatunen writes:
>
>> Well, my instructor, who insisted on teaching spins to me
>> although no longer required for certification said there weren't
>> any more real pilots.
>
>It's a judgment call. Spin practice is no longer required because more pilots
>were dying from spins during training than were dying from spins during flight
>thereafter.

My goodness. That's a very specific claim. Do you have any
support for it?

>The cure was worse than the disease. So the emphasis was shifted
>to avoiding spins, rather than recovering from them, at least for PPLs.
>
>> I guess you don't have to know how to recover from a spin if you
>> don't spin.
>
>Exactly. It's safer to practice avoiding spins, but to only learn the theory
>of spin recovery.
>
>> Like an add-on dual monitor?
>
>No. Look up TrackIR.
>
>> I fail to see how a PC can
>> realistically give the sensation of an instrument panel over two
>> feet across.
>
>See above.
>
>> Unless your computer chair can bounce up and down and lean left
>> and right, it's not the same.
>
>As I've said, a lot of private pilots seem to give physical sensations
>priority over everything else.

Really? How many private pilots do you know well enough to make
that claim?

>But there's a lot more to flying than a
>roller-coaster ride.

Are you supposin' that I said otherwise?

>I don't care much for the physical sensations myself,
>although takeoff and landing are kind of pleasant if they are smooth.

If. I'm not particulary fond of hitting tubulence when I'm in an
airliner, but physical sensations are hard to avoid if you fly
much.

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

[george]

On Jun 23, 11:16*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> It's a judgment call. Spin practice is no longer required because more pilots
> were dying from spins during training than were dying from spins during flight
> thereafter. The cure was worse than the disease. So the emphasis was shifted
> to avoiding spins, rather than recovering from them, at least for PPLs.
>
Bull****. Plain and simple.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ60fitlU70
Best you stay in your cupboard in Paris and leave the rest of us to
get out there and actually do things

[george]

On Jun 23, 12:20*pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
>
> >> Sure it does, including the feeling of falling when the stall breaks and
> >> the increased G load as you pull out.
>
> > It doesn't simulate motion. Motion is only one small part of flying.
>
> The G changes are a big part of a stall and something one needs to learn
> to essentially ignore which can only be done by actually doing it.
>

Remember the first fully developed stall you ever did solo ? :-)

[JohnT[_3_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> As I've said, a lot of private pilots seem to give physical sensations
> priority over everything else. But there's a lot more to flying than a
> roller-coaster ride. I don't care much for the physical sensations
> myself,
> although takeoff and landing are kind of pleasant if they are smooth.

What physical sensations are you referring to? You don't fly and you know
nothing about flying. You just play a computer game in your cupboard in
Paris.
--
JohnT

[a[_3_]]

On Jun 22, 9:45*pm, Wingnut > wrote:
> 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
>
> Ah, the Cessna 152 strawman again. I was wondering when that would show
> up. First sentence of non-quoted text as it just so happens -- which
> means one of my co-workers owes me ten bucks. :-)
>
> > Just as experience in driving a Yugo doesn't necessarily help in
> > driving a Formula 1 car.
>
> Experience driving versus never having sat behind a wheel should make
> some difference. It's plain old common sense!
>
> > 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.
>
> There will be some commonalities. Zero experience in a plane will make
> you worse than having had some experience. I don't claim you'd be
> proficient; just that you wouldn't actually be *less* capable than
> someone who knew *nothing*. Again, common sense.
>
> > 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.
>
> First of all, we weren't talking "pilots of small private aircraft", at
> least not until you came along and introduced that particular strawman.
>
> Second, they may not be able to do a good job, but the total non-pilot
> will surely do a worse job.
>
> Except in your earlier, specific scenario of being talked through a
> procedure from the ground, where anyone with basic comprehension skills
> will probably do about as well. (Someone with piloting experience might
> more quickly be able to find and recognize particular controls or
> instrument readouts though, and will be able to understand a more compact
> jargon, so he may be a bit faster though other than that only as good as
> the quality of the ground instructions.)
>
> >> 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.
>
> Someone who says that "the less experience a person has at a skilled
> task, the poorer their odds of completing it successfully" is
> "uninformed"? In what universe? In the one where I live there is this
> thing called a "learning curve". It climbs steeply at first, then bends
> over, but it's monotonic increasing, and it indicates task performance as
> a function of experience. Performance improves with experience, slowing
> down and eventually plateauing. For some things (e.g. Tic-Tac-Toe) it
> plateaus fast and low; for others (e.g. chess) it plateaus much more
> slowly and higher, because the thing being learned is more complicated.
> But it does not actually dip down at any point.
>
> Since this basic fact (learning curves are monotonic increasing) is
> disputed by you, I'm forced to conclude that you're insane and thus not
> really worth debating with any further.

Wingnut, I'm going to have to call you on your statement that learning
curves are monotonically increasing activities.

1) I have employees whose 10 years of experience can be characterized
as 1 year repeated 10 times. (That's OK depending on their job of
course.)
2) There are some who have posted here thousands of times and seem to
have learned nothing.
3) There are some here who even after repeated experiences have not
yet learned engaging others in the 'reality vs sim' experience doesn't
add value to the thread.

The major reason a non-certificate holder is one of the most frequent
posters here is because others of us, including me, took part in the
non-learning experience of engaging him on a topic.

It would appear MX's major recreation is sim and engaging in these
debates,other of his posts suggest he doesn't have much of a life
elsewhere. We've all seen literate failures at real life, he is most
likely in that class. Too many of us contribute to his recreation at
the expense of RAP (although these threads are better than the ****ing
contests others seem to enjoy). He is simply a non-pilot who enjoys
yanking on pilot's chains and does that fairly successfully.

You should note that when you simply reply to him, you postings are
also sent to other groups.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 22, 6:20*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> That's about 0.000001% of what you have to learn to deal with to fly
> airplanes, and a great deal of what you have to learn (the great majority, in
> fact) has nothing to do with physical sensations.

WRONG. Ignore what the plane tells you before a stall and YOU would
be dead.

One of the first things I was taught was to NOT ignore what the plane
is trying to tell you. It WILL tell you when it's ready to stop
flying BEFORE it shows on your airspeed indicator something you have
no clue about since MSFS doesn't indicate this. As others already
told you, you feel it in the controls (mushy, then shudders).

Same thing for landing, ignore what the plane when it's not ready to
land and YOU would be dead. You feel it before you see it indicated
on instruments. But of course YOU HAVE NO CLUE.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 23, 4:14*am, a > wrote:

> You should note that when you simply reply to him, you postings are
> also sent to other groups.- Hide quoted text -

Interesting and has me puzzled. All the threads I been participating
I thought has only been going back to rec.aviation.piloting. I see
what you are talking about though on certain threads???

Since we haven't seen new names pop up on the radar in this group his
trolling doesn't appear to be too effective in the other groups.

[a[_3_]]

On Jun 23, 8:29*am, " > wrote:
> On Jun 23, 4:14*am, a > wrote:
>
> > You should note that when you simply reply to him, you postings are
> > also sent to other groups.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Interesting and has me puzzled. *All the threads I been participating
> I thought has only been going back to rec.aviation.piloting. *I see
> what you are talking about though on certain threads???
>
> Since we haven't seen new names pop up on the radar in this group his
> trolling doesn't appear to be too effective in the other groups.

I'm using a Google group reader for this account, and when I click
reply the newsgroups being posted to appear in the newsgroup field.
Sometimes I forget to limit my responses to this group.

The OP was addressed to several news groups that would have found the
topic interesting, I have no complaint with that. Someone a long time
ago pointed out some of my comments were being cross posted, I
appreciated the head's up. Spammers like lots of groups, I don't want
to be a member of that tribe, either by cross posting or by content.
My 'content' speaks for itself, the cross posting is accidental.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 23, 9:32*am, a > wrote:

> The OP was addressed to several news groups that would have found the
> topic interesting,

I'm using Google groups so I can fully understand but I doubt that
rec.travel.air, rec.arts.movies.past-films, rec.arts.tv,
alt.gossip.celebrities would have been interested in this
discussion.

But then again, different threads may be xposted to different groups,
dunno. I just happened to pick one sub thread to extract the above
and the subthreads I have been participating in has only been to here.

>Spammers like lots of groups, I don't want
>to be a member of that tribe, either by cross posting or by content.
>My 'content' speaks for itself, the cross posting is accidental.

Same here.....

[Mxsmanic]

Wingnut writes:

> Experience driving versus never having sat behind a wheel should make
> some difference. It's plain old common sense!

It makes a difference, but not necessarily a useful difference.

> There will be some commonalities.

Very little in common, and much of it too dangerous to use. For example, the
747 has flight controls, and so does the Cessna--but a Cessna pilot who
actually attempts to fly the 747 by hand will obtain even worse results than
he would if he simply stayed with the automation.

> I don't claim you'd be proficient; just that you wouldn't actually
> be *less* capable than someone who knew *nothing*.

You would not be less capable, but you would not necessarily be more capable
in any practical sense.

> First of all, we weren't talking "pilots of small private aircraft", at
> least not until you came along and introduced that particular strawman.

Virtually every pilot arguing about it here is a low-time private pilot. I can
spot them from a mile away. They're in the "danger zone" of low-time pilots,
where most accidents occur. Enough experience to feel confident, but not
enough experience to feel humble.

> Second, they may not be able to do a good job, but the total non-pilot
> will surely do a worse job.

The results might be the same. The results for the pilot might actually be
worse if his experience encourages him to take risks that the non-pilot would
not (such as attempting to fly the aircraft by hand).

> Except in your earlier, specific scenario of being talked through a
> procedure from the ground, where anyone with basic comprehension skills
> will probably do about as well.

The only viable scenario is one in which the pilot/non-pilot is given
instructions by a qualified third party. It is unlikely that a non-pilot or a
pilot without experience in type would know enough to land entirely on his
own, without instructions.

> Someone with piloting experience might
> more quickly be able to find and recognize particular controls or
> instrument readouts though, and will be able to understand a more compact
> jargon, so he may be a bit faster though other than that only as good as
> the quality of the ground instructions.

He might find the magnetic compass faster, and he'd recognize the yoke and
rudder pedals and throttles. Beyond that, nothing is really certain. The real
risk is that he might think he knows more than he does, which means he might
do risky things that the non-pilot would not.

> Someone who says that "the less experience a person has at a skilled
> task, the poorer their odds of completing it successfully" is
> "uninformed"? In what universe? In the one where I live there is this
> thing called a "learning curve". It climbs steeply at first, then bends
> over, but it's monotonic increasing, and it indicates task performance as
> a function of experience. Performance improves with experience, slowing
> down and eventually plateauing. For some things (e.g. Tic-Tac-Toe) it
> plateaus fast and low; for others (e.g. chess) it plateaus much more
> slowly and higher, because the thing being learned is more complicated.
> But it does not actually dip down at any point.

The accident rate for non-pilots is zero, because they do not fly. The
accident rate for pilots with thousands of hours of experience is very low,
becaue they've been flying for a very long time. The accident rate for pilots
with only a limited number of hours is very high, because they gain confidence
before they gain competence. A low-time private Cessna pilot is thus in a
dangerous zone (and most pilots of small Cessnas are also low-time pilots),
and he has experience that is irrelevant in many ways to that required to fly
a 747. He is thus at considerable risk.

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> Too many of us contribute to his recreation at
> the expense of RAP (although these threads are better than the ****ing
> contests others seem to enjoy). He is simply a non-pilot who enjoys
> yanking on pilot's chains and does that fairly successfully.

I like to talk about aviation. Unfortunately, a small but vocal group of
people of high emotional tension and low intelligence will direct any
interaction with me towards a discussion of me personally (their bogeyman),
instead of discussing the original topic. And others, who might be interested
in discussing aviation, simply don't participate at all, which doesn't leave
many options other than the village idiots.

There are a few venues in which I'm able to sustain an intelligent discussion
of aviation without any reference to personalities at all, but in most venues
the angry young males are such a pox upon discussion that they eventually
overwhelm it.

It is interesting to note that sometimes the stupid ones (and the smart ones)
are not where or who you'd expect them to be.

[Mxsmanic]

Hatunen writes:

> Really? How many private pilots do you know well enough to make
> that claim?

Quite a few.

> If. I'm not particulary fond of hitting tubulence when I'm in an
> airliner, but physical sensations are hard to avoid if you fly
> much.

Sure, but they are not an integral part of flying, unless you fly specifically
for the thrill of sensations.

There are lots of YouTube videos of inexperienced, stupid pilots doing just
that. They don't always identify themselves, but eventually their names tend
to appear in NTSB reports.

[Hatunen]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:31:05 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Virtually every pilot arguing about it here is a low-time private pilot. I can
>spot them from a mile away.

And all of those lowtime private pilots can spot a non-pilot who
thinks he knows-it-all from a computer game a mile away.

[Mixie has a way of mixing truisms that hardly need stating with
assertions that come from his apparent thinking that a computer
game gives him life experience, and with assertions that rely on
believing that a PC game is the equivalent of a large
professional flight simulator.]

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

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> Bull****. Plain and simple.
> See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ60fitlU70

All I see is a stupid pilot violating Federal air regulations and
overstressing his (rented?) aircraft.

[Mxsmanic]

JohnT writes:

> What physical sensations are you referring to?

All of them. Some people are very into strong sensations.

> You don't fly and you know nothing about flying.

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

[Hatunen]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:39:01 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Hatunen writes:
>
>> Really? How many private pilots do you know well enough to make
>> that claim?
>
>Quite a few.
>
>> If. I'm not particulary fond of hitting tubulence when I'm in an
>> airliner, but physical sensations are hard to avoid if you fly
>> much.
>
>Sure, but they are not an integral part of flying, unless you fly specifically

Good grief. That's an almost stupid thing to say.

>for the thrill of sensations.

There are probably a few pilots who do things in the air for the
thrill of it. And there are some stunt pilots who do it for pay
or to win prizes. But as the old pilots' saw goes, "There are old
pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold
pilots."

But there are plenty of undesired sensations in flying even for
cautious pilots.

>There are lots of YouTube videos of inexperienced, stupid pilots doing just
>that.

How many? Two? Four? A dozen?

>They don't always identify themselves, but eventually their names tend
>to appear in NTSB reports.

You know this how? Are you psychic?

Although I admit, as I said above, thre are no old, bold pilots.

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

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Ignore what the plane tells you before a stall and YOU would
> be dead.

Fly the airplane correctly and you won't have to be told about an impending
stall by the airplane. If you feel an impending stall, you're already too far
behind the aircraft.

> One of the first things I was taught was to NOT ignore what the plane
> is trying to tell you.

It seems to have made an overriding impression upon you, as you seem to rely
upon it above all else. If you're not careful, that will kill you one day,
unless you stick to perfect VMC.

> It WILL tell you when it's ready to stop
> flying BEFORE it shows on your airspeed indicator something you have
> no clue about since MSFS doesn't indicate this.

As I've said, if you are flying correctly, you won't get any secret messages
from the aircraft.

You may be able to get away with flying like this in a Cessna 152, but it
won't work in a 747.

> As others already told you, you feel it in the controls (mushy, then
> shudders).

Only after you've fallen behind the airplane.

It's a bit like saying you know you're approaching the braking limit in your
car when one of the wheels locks. That's very true, but by the time one of the
wheels locks, you're already far beyond where you should safely be. Where
there's smoke, there's fire, but it's better to avoid conditions that start
fires to begin with.

> Same thing for landing, ignore what the plane when it's not ready to
> land and YOU would be dead. You feel it before you see it indicated
> on instruments.

You need to find other ways to fly than by the seat of your pants. Or stop
flying IFR, at least.

[Mxsmanic]

Hatunen writes:

> And all of those lowtime private pilots can spot a non-pilot who
> thinks he knows-it-all from a computer game a mile away.

Since they are not important, what they do or don't spot is irrelevant. They
are just noise.

[Mxsmanic]

Hatunen writes:

> Good grief. That's an almost stupid thing to say.

Not if you have an instrument rating.

> There are probably a few pilots who do things in the air for the
> thrill of it.

They are among the most at risk for accidents. Usually, they are inexperienced
(in part because they are more likely to kill themselves). However, there are
idiots with experience, too--see Pinnacle Airlines flight 3701.

> But as the old pilots' saw goes, "There are old
> pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold
> pilots."

Yes. But there are many young and would-be bold pilots posting here. The kind
who would buy a Cirrus if they could afford it.

> But there are plenty of undesired sensations in flying even for
> cautious pilots.

Yes--that's one of the drawbacks of flying for real vs. flying a sim. I hate
having my ears pop, for example.

> How many? Two? Four? A dozen?

By my count, perhaps several hundred.

> You know this how? Are you psychic?

I know this from studies that show a link between this type of behavior and
accidents. It's not limited to airplanes, either: exactly the same tendencies
can be seen among automobile drivers.

[Hatunen]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:40:59 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>george writes:
>
>> Bull****. Plain and simple.
>> See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ60fitlU70
>
>All I see is a stupid pilot violating Federal air regulations and
>overstressing his (rented?) aircraft.

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. Second, as anyone who
has done a spin is aware, there is hardly any structural stress
in a spin. In fact, once you get used to the fact that the earth
seems to be rotating very fast in front of you it's all rather
peaceful without any apparent extra G-forces save maybe a bit of
leaning in your seat.

The normal procedure is to work the controls until you have the
plane in a spiral and then just fly out of it; there is very
little structural stress involved unless you let yourself get too
close to the ground before pulling out and find yourself yanking
the yoke or joystick back too hard (a manouever that will not get
you out of a spin and will just make things worse).

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

[Hatunen]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:42:15 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>JohnT writes:
>
>> What physical sensations are you referring to?
>
>All of them. Some people are very into strong sensations.

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

>> You don't fly and you know nothing about flying.
>
>I have flown in airplanes many times. The sensations felt by pilots are
>identical to those felt by passengers.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

[Hatunen]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:55:26 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Hatunen writes:
>
>> Good grief. That's an almost stupid thing to say.
>
>Not if you have an instrument rating.
>
>> There are probably a few pilots who do things in the air for the
>> thrill of it.
>
>They are among the most at risk for accidents.


Well, duh.

>Usually, they are inexperienced
>(in part because they are more likely to kill themselves). However, there are
>idiots with experience, too--see Pinnacle Airlines flight 3701.
>
>> But as the old pilots' saw goes, "There are old
>> pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold
>> pilots."
>
>Yes. But there are many young and would-be bold pilots posting here. The kind
>who would buy a Cirrus if they could afford it.

Your point being? 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.

>> But there are plenty of undesired sensations in flying even for
>> cautious pilots.
>
>Yes--that's one of the drawbacks of flying for real vs. flying a sim. I hate
>having my ears pop, for example.

If that's your only concern...

As at this point usual you left out the meat of the comment you
are referring to, where you said:

>There are lots of YouTube videos of inexperienced, stupid pilots doing just
>that.

>> How many? Two? Four? A dozen?
>
>By my count, perhaps several hundred.

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

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.

How about posting maybe a dozen such URLs and we can see for
ourselves what you consider "inexperienced, stupid pilots". (I'm
not arguing that "inexperienced, stupid pilots" don't exist. I do
hope you are at least clever enough to realize that.)

Again you kleft out what you said that is crucial to
understanding what follow:

>They don't always identify themselves, but eventually their names tend
>to appear in NTSB reports.
>
>> You know this how? Are you psychic?
>
>I know this from studies that show a link between this type of behavior and
>accidents.

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

>It's not limited to airplanes, either: exactly the same tendencies
>can be seen among automobile drivers.

Another duh!

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.

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

[Hatunen]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:16:01 -0700, Hatunen >
wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:42:15 +0200, Mxsmanic >
>wrote:
>
>>JohnT writes:
>>
>>> What physical sensations are you referring to?
>>
>>All of them. Some people are very into strong sensations.
>
>Indeed. That goes without saying. Theme parks are full of them.
>
>>> You don't fly and you know nothing about flying.
>>
>>I have flown in airplanes many times. The sensations felt by pilots are
>>identical to those felt by passengers.
>
>Except the pilots have to deal with it and aren't allowed to
>cower in their sets.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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.

(More or less off-topic, but that's the reasoning I used to
decide never again take take the fast boat between Tallinn and
Helsinki, no matter how fast it is, in favor of the big Tallink
ferries.)

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

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> There are a few venues in which I'm able to sustain an intelligent discussion
> of aviation without any reference to personalities at all, but in most venues
> the angry young males are such a pox upon discussion that they eventually
> overwhelm it.

See:

http://www.positivityblog.com/index.php/2009/10/09/how-to-break-out-of-a-victim-mentality-7-powerful-tips/

The average age here is well past "young".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 23, 3:39*pm, Hatunen > wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:31:05 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
> >Virtually every pilot arguing about it here is a low-time private pilot. I can
> >spot them from a mile away.

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

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Hatunen writes:
>
>> Really? How many private pilots do you know well enough to make
>> that claim?
>
> Quite a few.

How is that possible since you have said seveal times you avoid social
contact with other people?

>> If. I'm not particulary fond of hitting tubulence when I'm in an
>> airliner, but physical sensations are hard to avoid if you fly
>> much.
>
> Sure, but they are not an integral part of flying, unless you fly specifically
> for the thrill of sensations.

Delusional.

Perfectly calm days with no thermals are a rarity.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Hatunen writes:
>
>> Good grief. That's an almost stupid thing to say.
>
> Not if you have an instrument rating.

And now it is surely a stupid thing to say as flying IFR almost guarantees
other than a perfectly smooth ride.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:
>
>> Bull****. Plain and simple.
>> See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ60fitlU70
>
> All I see is a stupid pilot violating Federal air regulations and
> overstressing his (rented?) aircraft.

All you see is delusion.

There is no FAR that prohibts doing spins and spins, unless very improperly
done, are not high stress manuevers.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> JohnT writes:
>
>> What physical sensations are you referring to?
>
> All of them. Some people are very into strong sensations.
>
>> You don't fly and you know nothing about flying.
>
> I have flown in airplanes many times. The sensations felt by pilots are
> identical to those felt by passengers.

Yeah, sure.

What you gloss over is that airline pilots take great care to minimize any
sensations felt by passengers because it tends to scare them and make them
not want to fly that airline again.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

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. 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.
Yes, I have the AD in front of me.

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.

There's still the question of reckless and careless operation, but if he was
in Canada, that might not apply. In general, one must question the wisdom of a
pilot who executes aerobatic maneuvers in an aircraft not designed for that
purpose. 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.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 23, 3:47*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:


> > As others already told you, you feel it in the controls (mushy, then
> > shudders).
>
> Only after you've fallen behind the airplane.

WRONG AGAIN. Ever hear of SLOW FLIGHT????????????

> You need to find other ways to fly than by the seat of your pants. Or stop
> flying IFR, at least.

WRONG AGAIN. LANDING IS NOT IFR NOR WAS I TALKING ABOUT FLYING IN
IMC. YOU DON'T EXPERIENCE WINDSHEAR IN MSFS, DO YOU where suddenly
your controls get mushy??????????

YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T FLY A REAL PLANE OR HAVE A CLUE ABOUT FLYING A
REAL PLANE, DO YOU or you wouldn't come up with crap like the
above.

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. SO, NO I AM NOT BEHIND THE PLANE.

BUT YOU DON'T KNOW THIS because of your closed mind about MSFS
THINKING IT IS LIKE THE REAL THING!!!!!!!!!!

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Ignore what the plane tells you before a stall and YOU would
>> be dead.
>
> Fly the airplane correctly and you won't have to be told about an impending
> stall by the airplane. If you feel an impending stall, you're already too far
> behind the aircraft.

Doing stalls periodically is a requirement, not an option or a mistake.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

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!"

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

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

Oo-wee-oo!

[Hatunen]

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 *

[JohnT[_3_]]

"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

[Hatunen]

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 *

[[email protected]]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

JohnT writes:

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

Because passengers and pilots share the same fuselage.

[a[_3_]]

On Jun 23, 4:42*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> JohnT writes:
> > What physical sensations are you referring to?
>
> All of them. Some people are very into strong sensations.
>
> > You don't fly and you know nothing about flying.
>
> I have flown in airplanes many times. The sensations felt by pilots are
> identical to those felt by passengers.

This is minor point, but anyone who thinks all sensations are
identical in an airplane, the differences being most evident in larger
ones, clearly does not understand the physics. An airplane is not a
point mass.

"Assume a spherical cow" indeed.

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> This is minor point, but anyone who thinks all sensations are
> identical in an airplane, the differences being most evident in larger
> ones, clearly does not understand the physics. An airplane is not a
> point mass.

Movements such as turbulence are generally translational: everyone on the
aircraft feels exactly the same thing.

Rotational movements about the center of gravity of the aircraft will have
magnitudes that vary with the distance from the CG, but passengers near the
cockpit or the tail of the aircraft will feel sensations that are essentially
identical to those felt by the pilots. In fact, on a 747, some passengers
(often in first class) will feel movements of larger magnitude than those felt
by the pilots.

So I do understand the physics, and the fact remains that everyone on the
airplane feels essentially the same thing. The notion that the pilots up front
are riding a bucking bronco while the passengers sleep in comfort in the back
is total fantasy.

Airliners are flown with great attention to smooth rides and gentle movements.
These rides and movements are just as smooth and gentle for the pilots as they
are for the passengers.

[george]

On Jun 24, 8:40*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:
> > *Bull****. Plain and simple.
> > *Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ60fitlU70
>
> All I see is a stupid pilot violating Federal air regulations and
> overstressing his (rented?) aircraft.

How is CTC violating Federal Air Regulations?
They are training pilots to CPL standard in New Zealand.
And you should know that spinning an aircraft doesn't overstress it
either in the spin or recovery...

[a[_3_]]

On Jun 23, 7:42*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> a writes:
> > This is minor point, but anyone who thinks all sensations are
> > identical in an airplane, the differences being most evident in larger
> > ones, clearly does not understand the physics. An airplane is not a
> > point mass.
>
> Movements such as turbulence are generally translational: everyone on the
> aircraft feels exactly the same thing.
>
> Rotational movements about the center of gravity of the aircraft will have
> magnitudes that vary with the distance from the CG, but passengers near the
> cockpit or the tail of the aircraft will feel sensations that are essentially
> identical to those felt by the pilots. In fact, on a 747, some passengers
> (often in first class) will feel movements of larger magnitude than those felt
> by the pilots.
>
> So I do understand the physics, and the fact remains that everyone on the
> airplane feels essentially the same thing. The notion that the pilots up front
> are riding a bucking bronco while the passengers sleep in comfort in the back
> is total fantasy.
>
> Airliners are flown with great attention to smooth rides and gentle movements.
> These rides and movements are just as smooth and gentle for the pilots as they
> are for the passengers.

I can assure you I understand the physics quite well.

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> I can assure you I understand the physics quite well.

I didn't ask.

[Hatunen]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 00:50:24 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Hatunen writes:
>
>> REally. That's their last words?
>
>Well, it's a saying, not a finding of fact.

Ah. and jsut who says it?

>It illustrates a point, namely,
>that thrillseeking behavior is incompatible with safe, normal flight.

Whoa. No ****? I woulda never thunk it.

>> 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."

But you said the last words were "Watch this"; nowreally, which
ones are the last words?

>> You obviously haven't been on some flights I've been on.
>
>I fly only with safe, major carriers if I can.

Never hit a major downdraft in a safe, major carrier, then?

>> 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.

Uh. Well, yeah. But you said there weren't any sensations, not
that turbulence was due to pilot incompetence. Or are you NOT
saying turbulence is due to pilot incompetence? It's a bit
unclear.

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

[Wingnut]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:31:05 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

> Wingnut writes:
>
>> Experience driving versus never having sat behind a wheel should make
>> some difference. It's plain old common sense!
>
> It makes a difference

Thanks.

>> There will be some commonalities.
>
> Very little in common, and much of it too dangerous to use. For example,
> the 747 has flight controls, and so does the Cessna

And here we have the Cessna strawman again.

> Virtually every pilot arguing about it here is a low-time private pilot.
> I can spot them from a mile away. They're in the "danger zone" of
> low-time pilots, where most accidents occur. Enough experience to feel
> confident, but not enough experience to feel humble.

Orthogonal issue to the original discussion.

> The results might be the same. The results for the pilot might actually
> be worse if his experience encourages him to take risks that the
> non-pilot would not (such as attempting to fly the aircraft by hand).

Do you honestly think someone with a *commercial* license won't typically
be well past that "not experienced enough to be humble" stage?

>> Except in your earlier, specific scenario of being talked through a
>> procedure from the ground, where anyone with basic comprehension skills
>> will probably do about as well.
>
> The only viable scenario is one in which the pilot/non-pilot is given
> instructions by a qualified third party.

In your ever-so-humble opinion perhaps.

>> Someone with piloting experience might more quickly be able to find and
>> recognize particular controls or instrument readouts though, and will
>> be able to understand a more compact jargon, so he may be a bit faster
>> though other than that only as good as the quality of the ground
>> instructions.
>
> He might find the magnetic compass faster, and he'd recognize the yoke
> and rudder pedals and throttles. Beyond that, nothing is really certain.

Er, horizon? Altimeter?

[Mxsmanic]

Wingnut writes:

> Do you honestly think someone with a *commercial* license won't typically
> be well past that "not experienced enough to be humble" stage?

Often, but not always. I've already mentioned Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701, a
shining example of incredibly stupid pilots who had CPLs.

And there are commercial pilots with far less experience than that. Need I
mention Colgan Air?

> In your ever-so-humble opinion perhaps.

Without instruction, a non-pilot--or a pilot without experience in type--would
be in very hot water.

> Er, horizon? Altimeter?

That's probably what he'd be asking himself. The AI had pretty colors that are
easy to spot, but the rest is not so obvious. He might spot the standby AI and
altimeter, but those aren't the instruments to watch.

[Mxsmanic]

Hatunen writes:

> Ah. and jsut who says it?

I've heard it repeated in aviation circles many times.

> Whoa. No ****? I woulda never thunk it.

An advantage to USENET is that it can expose you to ideas that might never
have crossed your mind previously.

> But you said the last words were "Watch this"; nowreally, which
> ones are the last words?

Small aircraft don't have CVRs.

> Never hit a major downdraft in a safe, major carrier, then?

None that I found alarming. Downdrafts are harmless as long as you're well
above terrain.

> Uh. Well, yeah. But you said there weren't any sensations ...

Where?

[[email protected]]

On Jun 23, 5:10*pm, 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.

YOU GET MUSHY CONTROLS IN MSFS???????????? YOU DON"T HAVE CONTROLS IN
MSFS, YOU USE A JOYSTICK OR A KEYBOARD.

> 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).

THEN YOU DON'T FLY A REAL PLANE IF YOU THINK PHOTOGRAPHY ANSD S&R IS
THE ONLY TIME YOU DO SLOW FLIGHT.. YOU LAND A PLANE UNDER VFR, NOT
IFR.

> > SO, NO I AM NOT BEHIND THE PLANE.
>
> Well, certainly if you scream it out, it must be so, eh?

NO, YOU CAN"T SEEM TO COMPREHEND THAT MSFS IS NOT FLYING A PLANE. IT
SIMULATES FLYING.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 23, 5:11*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > DEFINE LOW TIME PILOT????????????????????????
>
> Oo-wee-oo!

SO, WHAT IS THE ANSWER???????? TO YOUR DEFINITION OF LOW TIME PILOT
SINCE YOU CLAIM YOU CAN SPOT THEM???????

CLASSIC OF YOU NOT TO ANSWER A DIRECT QUESTION EH??????

[[email protected]]

On Jun 23, 6:47*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> Well, it IS pretty hard to get killed at a desktop sim...

DUH, good point!

[[email protected]]

On 23 jun, 23:55, 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. 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.
> Yes, I have the AD in front of me.
>
Better start reading that AD.
a. Not all Cessna 150's are affected by this AD, just the ones with a
swept tail.
b. It has nothing to do with the rudder interfering with the elevator
but the head of rudder stop bolts got hooked.

[JohnT[_3_]]

> wrote in message
...
> On Jun 23, 5:11 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>> > DEFINE LOW TIME PILOT????????????????????????
>>
>> Oo-wee-oo!
>
> SO, WHAT IS THE ANSWER???????? TO YOUR DEFINITION OF LOW TIME PILOT
> SINCE YOU CLAIM YOU CAN SPOT THEM???????
>
> CLASSIC OF YOU NOT TO ANSWER A DIRECT QUESTION EH??????

Please don't shout.
--
JohnT

[[email protected]]

On Jun 24, 7:00*am, " > wrote:

> THE ONLY TIME YOU DO SLOW FLIGHT.. *YOU LAND A PLANE UNDER VFR, NOT
> IFR.

CORRECTION to my post above - You land a plane under VMC conditions
(VISUAL)

[Greg Faris]

In article >,
says...
>

>
>I like to talk about aviation. Unfortunately, a small but vocal group of
>people of high emotional tension and low intelligence will direct any
>interaction with me towards a discussion of me personally (their bogeyman),
>instead of discussing the original topic. And others, who might be interested
>in discussing aviation, simply don't participate at all, which doesn't leave
>many options other than the village idiots.
>

Isn't that just unfair life for you? You show up as a fake, hoax charlatan,
trying to tell people who know what they're talking about the ins and outs of
their business, and they call you on it and put a "pox" on your game. Many of
the "young, testosterone-soaked males" you decry are actually much older than
yourself, and some are female, as you have repeatedly failed to notice. What
separates them from you, far removed from the simplistic justification you use
to console your own ego, is that they have a clue of what they are talking
about.

Certainly it never occurred to you to wonder why this injustice happens to you
almost everywhere you go.

[george]

On Jun 24, 10:05*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> None that I found alarming. Downdrafts are harmless as long as you're well
> above terrain.


Rotor ???????

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> On Jun 24, 10:05*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > None that I found alarming. Downdrafts are harmless as long as you're well
> > above terrain.
>
>
> Rotor ???????

Thunderstorm? Hurricane? Tornado? Nuclear explosion?

I don't recall losing 15,000 feet in a rotor on a commercial flight, but I
suppose anything is possible. A handful of exceptions does not disprove the
rule.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> YOU GET MUSHY CONTROLS IN MSFS????????????

If I make enough mistakes, yes.

> THEN YOU DON'T FLY A REAL PLANE IF YOU THINK PHOTOGRAPHY ANSD S&R IS
> THE ONLY TIME YOU DO SLOW FLIGHT..

I didn't say anything about it being the only time.

> YOU LAND A PLANE UNDER VFR, NOT IFR.

Airplanes are landed under IFR every minute of every day. I've done autolands,
too, which have had no visual component at all.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> CORRECTION to my post above - You land a plane under VMC conditions
> (VISUAL)

Almost, but not quite. Aircraft land in IMC all the time, and I've done it
many times.

[The Starmaker]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> george writes:
>
> > On Jun 24, 10:05 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >
> > > None that I found alarming. Downdrafts are harmless as long as you're well
> > > above terrain.
> >
> >
> > Rotor ???????
>
> Thunderstorm? Hurricane? Tornado? Nuclear explosion?
>
> I don't recall losing 15,000 feet in a rotor on a commercial flight, but I
> suppose anything is possible. A handful of exceptions does not disprove the
> rule.

which version of microsoft flight simulator do you use?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Better start reading that AD.
> a. Not all Cessna 150's are affected by this AD, just the ones with a
> swept tail.

That is, seven out of every ten 150s built, essentially everything after 1966
or so. That's a fascinating detail.

> b. It has nothing to do with the rudder interfering with the elevator
> but the head of rudder stop bolts got hooked.

"... such as contact between the rudder and the elevator."

Will all of these details fit on the head of a pin?

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:


> A handful of exceptions does not disprove the
> rule.

Yet you seem to use exceptions quite frequently to "prove" you are correct.

Case in point: that some model C150s are prohibited from spinning to prove
pilots are doing reckless spinning.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> CORRECTION to my post above - You land a plane under VMC conditions
>> (VISUAL)
>
> Almost, but not quite. Aircraft land in IMC all the time, and I've done it
> many times.

No, you have not.

The only thing you have "landed" is MSFS.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> YOU GET MUSHY CONTROLS IN MSFS????????????
>
> If I make enough mistakes, yes.
>
>> THEN YOU DON'T FLY A REAL PLANE IF YOU THINK PHOTOGRAPHY ANSD S&R IS
>> THE ONLY TIME YOU DO SLOW FLIGHT..
>
> I didn't say anything about it being the only time.
>
>> YOU LAND A PLANE UNDER VFR, NOT IFR.
>
> Airplanes are landed under IFR every minute of every day. I've done autolands,
> too, which have had no visual component at all.

No you have not.

The only thing you have "landed" is MSFS.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

The Starmaker writes:

> which version of microsoft flight simulator do you use?

FS 2004 (also called FS9)

[[email protected]]

On Jun 24, 4:49*pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
>
> >> CORRECTION to my post above - You land a plane under VMC conditions
> >> (VISUAL)
>
> > Almost, but not quite. Aircraft land in IMC all the time, and I've done it
> > many times.

Then YOU DID NOT SIMULATE LANDING THE PLANE. Did you????????????

DUH, AUTO LAND........ HELLO, anybody out there.

PILOTS LAND THE PLANE in VMC.in the real world.

As Jim already pointed out, YOU DON'T land anything. YOU SIMULATE
LANDING on MSFS.

WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT SIMULATION?????

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Then YOU DID NOT SIMULATE LANDING THE PLANE. Did you????????????

I've simulated all sorts of landings: hand-flown, autopilot (including
autoland), VMC, IMC, zero visibility, crosswinds, etc. The greater the variety
of situations you simulate, the more you learn.

A simulator allows you to gain experience with situations that you may never
encounter in real life. While simulation isn't perfect, the knowledge you gain
from the simulation of a specific situation is more useful than no knowledge
at all ... especially if that particular situation actually arises (I think Al
Haynes would agree with that).

> DUH, AUTO LAND........ HELLO, anybody out there.
>
> PILOTS LAND THE PLANE in VMC.in the real world.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

I think if you do a quick search on YouTube, you'll find that lots of landings
take place in IMC, including computer-controlled autolands in very low
visibility (apparently Cat IIIc autolands in zero visibility are not actually
done because of the difficulty in taxiing to the gate thereafter).

> As Jim already pointed out, YOU DON'T land anything. YOU SIMULATE
> LANDING on MSFS.

I land in the simulator.

> WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT SIMULATION?????

I might be tempted to ask the same question.

[a[_3_]]

On Jun 24, 7:53*pm, " > wrote:
> On Jun 24, 4:49*pm, wrote:
>
> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > > writes:
>
> > >> CORRECTION to my post above - You land a plane under VMC conditions
> > >> (VISUAL)
>
> > > Almost, but not quite. Aircraft land in IMC all the time, and I've done it
> > > many times.
>
> Then YOU DID NOT SIMULATE LANDING THE PLANE. *Did you????????????
>
> DUH, AUTO LAND........ HELLO, anybody out there.
>
> PILOTS LAND THE PLANE in VMC.in the real world.
>
> As Jim already pointed out, YOU DON'T land anything. *YOU SIMULATE
> LANDING on MSFS.
>
> WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT SIMULATION?????

Is there a point to this 'debate'? We know the rules of the game MX
plays, Continue if you enjoy being played.

[Mxsmanic]

Hatunen writes:

> Mixie needs to tell that to the people who wer e seriously
> injured recntly when a jetliner did a sudden dror in altitude of
> several thousand feet.
>
> But the plane came out OK. Maybe that's what he meant.

Passengers who fail to keep their seat belts fastened risk injury even in
moderate turbulence that is harmless to the aircraft.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Hatunen writes:
>
>> Mixie needs to tell that to the people who wer e seriously
>> injured recntly when a jetliner did a sudden dror in altitude of
>> several thousand feet.
>>
>> But the plane came out OK. Maybe that's what he meant.
>
> Passengers who fail to keep their seat belts fastened risk injury even in
> moderate turbulence that is harmless to the aircraft.

Ice cream has no bones.

Do I win the contest for who is best at stating an obvious fact which has
nothing to do with the discussion?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Hatunen]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:09:40 -0700 (PDT), george
> wrote:

>On Jun 24, 10:05*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> None that I found alarming. Downdrafts are harmless as long as you're well
>> above terrain.
>
>
>Rotor ???????

Mixie needs to tell that to the people who wer e seriously
injured recntly when a jetliner did a sudden dror in altitude of
several thousand feet.

But the plane came out OK. Maybe that's what he meant.

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

[Hatunen]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 04:24:02 -0000,
wrote:

>In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Hatunen writes:
>>
>>> Mixie needs to tell that to the people who wer e seriously
>>> injured recntly when a jetliner did a sudden dror in altitude of
>>> several thousand feet.
>>>
>>> But the plane came out OK. Maybe that's what he meant.
>>
>> Passengers who fail to keep their seat belts fastened risk injury even in
>> moderate turbulence that is harmless to the aircraft.
>
>Ice cream has no bones.
>
>Do I win the contest for who is best at stating an obvious fact which has
>nothing to do with the discussion?

Sorry. Mixie won that prize ages ago.

N.B. Having plonked Mixie once again, I only see his posts when
others quote him.

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

[[email protected]]

On 24 jun, 23:42, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Better start reading that AD.
> > a. Not all Cessna 150's are affected by this AD, just the ones with a
> > swept tail.
>
> That is, seven out of every ten 150s built, essentially everything after 1966
> or so. That's a fascinating detail.

Important enough if you own a C150.

>
> > b. It has nothing to do with the rudder interfering with the elevator
> > but the head of rudder stop bolts got hooked.
>
> "... such as contact between the rudder and the elevator."
>
Nope. Read again.


> Will all of these details fit on the head of a pin?

Reading and understanding details of ADs is part of aviation. The same
aviation you claim having an interest in.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Nope. Read again.

Done. The text hasn't changed.

[a[_3_]]

On Jun 25, 4:46*am, wrote:
> On 24 jun, 23:42, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > writes:
> > > Better start reading that AD.
> > > a. Not all Cessna 150's are affected by this AD, just the ones with a
> > > swept tail.
>
> > That is, seven out of every ten 150s built, essentially everything after 1966
> > or so. That's a fascinating detail.
>
> Important enough if you own a C150.
>
>
>
> > > b. It has nothing to do with the rudder interfering with the elevator
> > > but the head of rudder stop bolts got hooked.
>
> > "... such as contact between the rudder and the elevator."
>
> Nope. Read again.
>
> > Will all of these details fit on the head of a pin?
>
> Reading and understanding details of ADs is part of aviation. The same
> aviation you claim having an interest in.

You're all dancing to the MX tune, of course. I kept the initial title
so the music could continue, but reduced the newsgroups to only RAP. I
don't want to share the fun over a half dozen newsgroups.

[Bob Myers]

a wrote:
> Now here is a question that really displays my ignorance: what
> certificates do military pilots hold? Are those certificates issued by
> the FAA?

No. The military is a law unto itself in this area, although obviously
military flight experience converts to a civilian ticket fairly easily
once a pilot leaves the service.

Bob M.

[Bob Myers]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Hatunen writes:
>
>> That depends on what you're claiming to be an expert at.
>
> I don't claim to be an expert at anything, but I'm quite certain that
> I know more about flying a 737 or 747 than the vast majority of
> pilots who have flown only Cessna 172s.

Frankly - no, you don't. What you know would be akin to
reading a book on brain surgery and claiming to actually be
a brain surgeon.

Bob M.

[Bob Myers]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> William Black writes:
>
>> No, it's like saying that anyone who has driven any car knows a
>> great deal more about driving than someone who has played driving
>> games on a personal computer, no matter how sophisticated.
>
> But that is also an incorrect statement.
>
> If only real flying experience were important, then nobody would ever
> use simulators. In fact, if someone wants to fly a 747, he is better
> off flying a simulator of a 747 than he is flying a Cessna 152. While
> the simulation isn't the same as flying a 747 for real, it's a lot
> closer than the real-world experience of a Cessna 172 would be.

But the simulator experience you're talking about is absolutely
meaningless without real-world flight experience. For that matter,
the "simulator" in your case really isn't one. It's a computer game,
something which is VERY far removed from what the airlines call
a simulator. It is, in fact, absolutely nothing like a real simulator, and
essentially useless for meaningful flight training.

Bob M.

[Bob Myers]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
>> Tell us: does the simulator simulate a stall?
>
> Yes.

No. The little airplane you see on the screen may stall, but
you have absolutely no insight at all into what a stall *feels*
like.

Bob M.

[The Starmaker]

Bob Myers wrote:
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > William Black writes:
> >
> >> No, it's like saying that anyone who has driven any car knows a
> >> great deal more about driving than someone who has played driving
> >> games on a personal computer, no matter how sophisticated.
> >
> > But that is also an incorrect statement.
> >
> > If only real flying experience were important, then nobody would ever
> > use simulators. In fact, if someone wants to fly a 747, he is better
> > off flying a simulator of a 747 than he is flying a Cessna 152. While
> > the simulation isn't the same as flying a 747 for real, it's a lot
> > closer than the real-world experience of a Cessna 172 would be.
>
> But the simulator experience you're talking about is absolutely
> meaningless without real-world flight experience. For that matter,
> the "simulator" in your case really isn't one. It's a computer game,
> something which is VERY far removed from what the airlines call
> a simulator. It is, in fact, absolutely nothing like a real simulator, and
> essentially useless for meaningful flight training.
>
> Bob M.

The army uses...simulators. They fight wars with it...you don't even
have to go outside...

[The Starmaker]

Bob Myers wrote:
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> >
> >> Tell us: does the simulator simulate a stall?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> No. The little airplane you see on the screen may stall, but
> you have absolutely no insight at all into what a stall *feels*
> like.
>
> Bob M.

what version of microsoft flight simulator do you use?

[The Starmaker]

Bob Myers wrote:
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> >
> >> Tell us: does the simulator simulate a stall?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> No. The little airplane you see on the screen may stall, but
> you have absolutely no insight at all into what a stall *feels*
> like.
>
> Bob M.

ever seen a plane crash where every single person died except two people lived?

[The Starmaker]

Hatunen wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:14:36 -0700, The Starmaker
> > wrote:
>
> >Bob Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> Mxsmanic wrote:
> >> > William Black writes:
> >> >
> >> >> No, it's like saying that anyone who has driven any car knows a
> >> >> great deal more about driving than someone who has played driving
> >> >> games on a personal computer, no matter how sophisticated.
> >> >
> >> > But that is also an incorrect statement.
> >> >
> >> > If only real flying experience were important, then nobody would ever
> >> > use simulators. In fact, if someone wants to fly a 747, he is better
> >> > off flying a simulator of a 747 than he is flying a Cessna 152. While
> >> > the simulation isn't the same as flying a 747 for real, it's a lot
> >> > closer than the real-world experience of a Cessna 172 would be.
> >>
> >> But the simulator experience you're talking about is absolutely
> >> meaningless without real-world flight experience. For that matter,
> >> the "simulator" in your case really isn't one. It's a computer game,
> >> something which is VERY far removed from what the airlines call
> >> a simulator. It is, in fact, absolutely nothing like a real simulator, and
> >> essentially useless for meaningful flight training.
> >>
> >The army uses...simulators. They fight wars with it...you don't even
> >have to go outside...
>
> And this has to do with flying an airplane how?
>
> Do you suppose your typical lieutenant taking simulator training
> will be allowed to become a tank commander without actually ever
> having been in a tank?

Why not?

What is a unmanned aerial vehicle, that thing they call a drone? You
gotta be great with a sim to fly that!

[Hatunen]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:14:36 -0700, The Starmaker
> wrote:

>Bob Myers wrote:
>>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> > William Black writes:
>> >
>> >> No, it's like saying that anyone who has driven any car knows a
>> >> great deal more about driving than someone who has played driving
>> >> games on a personal computer, no matter how sophisticated.
>> >
>> > But that is also an incorrect statement.
>> >
>> > If only real flying experience were important, then nobody would ever
>> > use simulators. In fact, if someone wants to fly a 747, he is better
>> > off flying a simulator of a 747 than he is flying a Cessna 152. While
>> > the simulation isn't the same as flying a 747 for real, it's a lot
>> > closer than the real-world experience of a Cessna 172 would be.
>>
>> But the simulator experience you're talking about is absolutely
>> meaningless without real-world flight experience. For that matter,
>> the "simulator" in your case really isn't one. It's a computer game,
>> something which is VERY far removed from what the airlines call
>> a simulator. It is, in fact, absolutely nothing like a real simulator, and
>> essentially useless for meaningful flight training.
>>
>The army uses...simulators. They fight wars with it...you don't even
>have to go outside...

And this has to do with flying an airplane how?

Do you suppose your typical lieutenant taking simulator training
will be allowed to become a tank commander without actually ever
having been in a tank?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Myers writes:

> No. The little airplane you see on the screen may stall, but
> you have absolutely no insight at all into what a stall *feels*
> like.

I have some insight into it, but what it feels like is not terribly important.

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Myers writes:

> But the simulator experience you're talking about is absolutely
> meaningless without real-world flight experience.

I don't share that opinion, nor is it widely held.

In fact, it's possible to pursue simulation as an end in itself. It does have
certain advantages that real flight does not.

> For that matter, the "simulator" in your case really isn't one.
> It's a computer game, something which is VERY far removed from
> what the airlines call a simulator.

Clearly, it's been a long time since you last used a desktop simulator.

> It is, in fact, absolutely nothing like a real simulator, and
> essentially useless for meaningful flight training.

The U.S. military disagrees with you, and has for the past decade (that is,
through several versions of MSFS). So do many pilots, flight schools, and
instructors.

In general, it can be said that anyone who absolutely dismisses or worships
flight simulation is misguided or has some sort of ax to grind.

[Mxsmanic]

Hatunen writes:

> And this has to do with flying an airplane how?

The military also uses desktop flight simulators, including Microsoft Flight
Simulator.

> Do you suppose your typical lieutenant taking simulator training
> will be allowed to become a tank commander without actually ever
> having been in a tank?

It's certainly conceivable, but I don't know if it is actually done.

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Myers writes:

> Frankly - no, you don't.

Since you don't know the extent of my knowledge, you are not in a position to
assess it. So why not talk about aviation instead?