Strange landing at SJC

[Alexander Avtanski]

Hello,

I just came back from a walk outside my office in Santa Clara. Around
3:00pm I saw something quite unusual - while all the planes from San
Jose International were taking off in N-W direction, there was a
single plane (something that looked a bit like MD-80) that seemed to
_land_ coming from N-W, exactly opposite the rest of the traffic.

I noticed the strange plane because it was going quite low and what
looked to me way faster than the usual. I can't see the airport from
here, but shortly after I lost the MD-80-like thing from sight I saw a
737 taking off - it looked like while one was landing on the west
runway, the 737 was taking off the east one in the opposite direction.

I've never seen anything like that. It's possible that the plane
didn't land on SJC, but it was awfully close to the regular flight
path. Is such "backward" landing normal? Was this guy having a
problem?

- Alex

[Mike[_22_]]

"Alexander Avtanski" > wrote in message
...
> Hello,
>
> I just came back from a walk outside my office in Santa Clara. Around
> 3:00pm I saw something quite unusual - while all the planes from San
> Jose International were taking off in N-W direction, there was a
> single plane (something that looked a bit like MD-80) that seemed to
> _land_ coming from N-W, exactly opposite the rest of the traffic.
>
> I noticed the strange plane because it was going quite low and what
> looked to me way faster than the usual. I can't see the airport from
> here, but shortly after I lost the MD-80-like thing from sight I saw a
> 737 taking off - it looked like while one was landing on the west
> runway, the 737 was taking off the east one in the opposite direction.
>
> I've never seen anything like that. It's possible that the plane
> didn't land on SJC, but it was awfully close to the regular flight
> path. Is such "backward" landing normal? Was this guy having a
> problem?

From the description, the MD-80 was probably an emergency coming in for a
landing and was allowed to land opposite direction for expediency. He could
have had a mechanical problem, a fuel problem, or a medical emergency. It
happens all the time.

[Alexander Avtanski]

Hello,

On Aug 19, 5:14*pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> "Alexander Avtanski" > wrote in message
> [...]
> > I just came back from a walk outside my office in Santa Clara. *Around
> > 3:00pm I saw something quite unusual - while all the planes from San
> > Jose International were taking off in N-W direction, there was a
> > single plane (something that looked a bit like MD-80) that seemed to
> > _land_ coming from N-W, exactly opposite the rest of the traffic.
> [...]
>
> From the description, the MD-80 was probably an emergency coming in for a
> landing and was allowed to land opposite direction for expediency. *He could
> have had a mechanical problem, a fuel problem, or a medical emergency. *It
> happens all the time.

Thanks Mike! I was beginning to think that maybe they changed the
traffic
direction and I saw the last plane landing in the old sequence. But
after reading
your mail I remembered about the archive radar tracks for SFO Bay Area
( http://live.airportnetwork.com/sfo/ ). Looking at the data shortly
after 3pm
found the plane I saw:

http://avtanski.net/images/var/sjc_20080819_2.jpg

Here the two green planes are the ones taking from SJC in NW direction
and
turning left; the "opposite" plane is the red one - landing against
all the traffic!
Well, maybe he is British...

Regards,

- Alex

[More_Flaps]

On Aug 20, 6:29*pm, Alexander Avtanski > wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Aug 19, 5:14*pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > "Alexander Avtanski" > wrote in message
> > [...]
> > > I just came back from a walk outside my office in Santa Clara. *Around
> > > 3:00pm I saw something quite unusual - while all the planes from San
> > > Jose International were taking off in N-W direction, there was a
> > > single plane (something that looked a bit like MD-80) that seemed to
> > > _land_ coming from N-W, exactly opposite the rest of the traffic.
> > [...]
>
> > From the description, the MD-80 was probably an emergency coming in for a
> > landing and was allowed to land opposite direction for expediency. *He could
> > have had a mechanical problem, a fuel problem, or a medical emergency. *It
> > happens all the time.
>
> Thanks Mike! *I was beginning to think that maybe they changed the
> traffic
> direction and I saw the last plane landing in the old sequence. *But
> after reading
> your mail I remembered about the archive radar tracks for SFO Bay Area
> (http://live.airportnetwork.com/sfo/). Looking at the data shortly
> after 3pm
> found the plane I saw:
>
> *http://avtanski.net/images/var/sjc_20080819_2.jpg
>
> Here the two green planes are the ones taking from SJC in NW direction
> and
> turning left; the "opposite" plane is the red one - landing against
> all the traffic!
> Well, maybe he is British...
>
Whats with the wonky tracks -or are the pilots drunk?

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Alexander Avtanski > wrote in
:

> Hello,
>
> On Aug 19, 5:14*pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>> "Alexander Avtanski" > wrote in message
>> [...]
>> > I just came back from a walk outside my office in Santa Clara.
>> > *Aroun
> d
>> > 3:00pm I saw something quite unusual - while all the planes from
>> > San Jose International were taking off in N-W direction, there was
>> > a single plane (something that looked a bit like MD-80) that seemed
>> > to _land_ coming from N-W, exactly opposite the rest of the
>> > traffic.
>> [...]
>>
>> From the description, the MD-80 was probably an emergency coming in
>> for a landing and was allowed to land opposite direction for
>> expediency. *He
> could
>> have had a mechanical problem, a fuel problem, or a medical
>> emergency.
> *It
>> happens all the time.
>
> Thanks Mike! I was beginning to think that maybe they changed the
> traffic
> direction and I saw the last plane landing in the old sequence. But
> after reading
> your mail I remembered about the archive radar tracks for SFO Bay Area
> ( http://live.airportnetwork.com/sfo/ ). Looking at the data shortly
> after 3pm
> found the plane I saw:
>
> http://avtanski.net/images/var/sjc_20080819_2.jpg
>
> Here the two green planes are the ones taking from SJC in NW direction
> and
> turning left; the "opposite" plane is the red one - landing against
> all the traffic!
> Well, maybe he is British...
>

You can land any way you like. If the traffic is light, ATC will slot
you in either by their own request or by your own. It's pretty common,
actually, and if the winds are light, not an issue. Normally most
airliners have a tailwind limit of 12 to 15 knots, and in some
instances, higher. The most common reason to do it is to save time, of
course. These days it's geting more common in order to save fuel.


Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 19, 3:32*pm, Alexander Avtanski > wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just came back from a walk outside my office in Santa Clara. *Around
> 3:00pm I saw something quite unusual - while all the planes from San
> Jose International were taking off in N-W direction, there was a
> single plane (something that looked a bit like MD-80) that seemed to
> _land_ coming from N-W, exactly opposite the rest of the traffic.

If the winds are light its not unusual for ATC to allow you to land
opposite direction. They may have agreed to it only if he kept his
speed up. This may have saved him $1000 in jet fuel.

-Robert

[Mike[_22_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 19, 3:32 pm, Alexander Avtanski > wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I just came back from a walk outside my office in Santa Clara. Around
> > 3:00pm I saw something quite unusual - while all the planes from San
> > Jose International were taking off in N-W direction, there was a
> > single plane (something that looked a bit like MD-80) that seemed to
> > _land_ coming from N-W, exactly opposite the rest of the traffic.
>
> If the winds are light its not unusual for ATC to allow you to land
> opposite direction. They may have agreed to it only if he kept his
> speed up. This may have saved him $1000 in jet fuel.

While this is true, the traffic mentioned by the OP seemed to indicate they
were busy and traffic came soon before and after which led me to believe it
was an emergency. SJC is a fairly busy airport.

In Memphis, FedEx favors landing to the north which allows their planes a
short taxi to their hub. They will sometimes land with very high tailwinds
(30-35 kts) so I'm told.

[Alexander Avtanski]

Hello again,

On Aug 19, 3:32*pm, Alexander Avtanski > wrote:
> [...]
> I just came back from a walk outside my office in Santa Clara. *Around
> 3:00pm I saw something quite unusual - while all the planes from San
> Jose International were taking off in N-W direction, there was a
> single plane (something that looked a bit like MD-80) that seemed to
> _land_ coming from N-W, exactly opposite the rest of the traffic.
> [...]

I just got an e-mail from a reader of this group (Thanks!), who sent
me links to some ATC audio and pointed out the place where the tower
says that a "flight check Lear will do a low approach to 12R".

http://avtanski.net/images/var/KSJC-Twr-Aug-19-2008-2200Z.mp3

(This is about 20 sec. from the start of the recording).

So, first, shame on me that I could confuse a Learjet with MD-80. It
has been quite low then and it zoomed really fast so it managed to
surprise me and I couldn't get a look, but still...

I checked the approach audio too - at about 24min 20sec of this
recording some guy says something about "we've lost a receiver", but I
can't make the rest. Here's the audio (don't forget to scroll to the
24:20 mark!):

http://avtanski.net/images/var/KSJC-App-Aug-19-2008-2130Z.mp3

What's this about? Just curious...

Regards,

- Alex

[John Clear]

In article >,
Alexander Avtanski > wrote:
>
>I just got an e-mail from a reader of this group (Thanks!), who sent
>me links to some ATC audio and pointed out the place where the tower
>says that a "flight check Lear will do a low approach to 12R".

Flight Check is the FAA checking navaids. The ILS for 12R was
probably due for a check. I've seen them do a check at Palo Alto
(PAO), and they zipped through the approach really fast, on their
way to the next check.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Mike" > wrote in news:6D_qk.361$5C.65@trnddc02:

> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> .
> .. On Aug 19, 3:32 pm, Alexander Avtanski > wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I just came back from a walk outside my office in Santa Clara.
>> > Around 3:00pm I saw something quite unusual - while all the planes
>> > from San Jose International were taking off in N-W direction, there
>> > was a single plane (something that looked a bit like MD-80) that
>> > seemed to _land_ coming from N-W, exactly opposite the rest of the
>> > traffic.
>>
>> If the winds are light its not unusual for ATC to allow you to land
>> opposite direction. They may have agreed to it only if he kept his
>> speed up. This may have saved him $1000 in jet fuel.
>
> While this is true, the traffic mentioned by the OP seemed to indicate
> they were busy and traffic came soon before and after which led me to
> believe it was an emergency. SJC is a fairly busy airport.
>
> In Memphis, FedEx favors landing to the north which allows their
> planes a short taxi to their hub. They will sometimes land with very
> high tailwinds (30-35 kts) so I'm told.
>


No, they can't operate with tailwinds that high. Typicla limits are 15
knots, though I have operated with a limit of 25 for take off and landing
in an airport with only one way in and out. We had special perfomrance
sheets for that.


Bertie
>

[Fillard Millmore]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike" > wrote in news:6D_qk.361$5C.65@trnddc02:
>
>
>
> No, they can't operate with tailwinds that high. Typicla limits are 15
> knots, though I have operated with a limit of 25 for take off and landing
> in an airport with only one way in and out. We had special perfomrance
> sheets for that.
>
>
> Bertie
>>

Oh yeah, since you haven't done it, it could never happen.

Did little Anthony inherit this trait from you?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Fillard Millmore" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Mike" > wrote in news:6D_qk.361$5C.65@trnddc02:
>>
>>
>>
>> No, they can't operate with tailwinds that high. Typicla limits are
>> 15 knots, though I have operated with a limit of 25 for take off and
>> landing in an airport with only one way in and out. We had special
>> perfomrance sheets for that.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>>
>
> Oh yeah, since you haven't done it, it could never happen.


Nope, because the manufaturers say so , dickbreath.




Bertie

[morgan mair fheal]

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> "Fillard Millmore" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Mike" > wrote in news:6D_qk.361$5C.65@trnddc02:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> No, they can't operate with tailwinds that high. Typicla limits are
> >> 15 knots, though I have operated with a limit of 25 for take off and
> >> landing in an airport with only one way in and out. We had special
> >> perfomrance sheets for that.
> >>
> >>
> >> Bertie
> >>>
> >
> > Oh yeah, since you haven't done it, it could never happen.
>
>
> Nope, because the manufaturers say so , dickbreath.

besides if you dont really know whats where
theres traffic from moffet that travels roughly the same n-s direction
but a few miles west

and traffic from north takes a south leg either side of the airport
then turns base down near capitol expressway before turning final

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[Mike[_22_]]

"Alexander Avtanski" > wrote in message
...

> I checked the approach audio too - at about 24min 20sec of this
> recording some guy says something about "we've lost a receiver", but I
> can't make the rest. Here's the audio (don't forget to scroll to the
> 24:20 mark!):
>
> http://avtanski.net/images/var/KSJC-App-Aug-19-2008-2130Z.mp3
>
> What's this about? Just curious...

FAA flight check uses NAV receivers in the back of the plane coupled to a
computer that checks the ILS equipment. They could have had some type of
glitch in the middle of a run which would require them to do the last run
over. That's my guess.

FAA flight check has numerous planes. They have a few Lear 35s, but most of
their planes are King-Airs. All of them have 2 digit N numbers.

[Bob F.[_3_]]

"Mike" > wrote in message
news:1S1sk.536$p72.166@trnddc05...
> "Alexander Avtanski" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I checked the approach audio too - at about 24min 20sec of this
>> recording some guy says something about "we've lost a receiver", but I
>> can't make the rest. Here's the audio (don't forget to scroll to the
>> 24:20 mark!):
>>
>> http://avtanski.net/images/var/KSJC-App-Aug-19-2008-2130Z.mp3
>>
>> What's this about? Just curious...
>
> FAA flight check uses NAV receivers in the back of the plane coupled to a
> computer that checks the ILS equipment. They could have had some type of
> glitch in the middle of a run which would require them to do the last run
> over. That's my guess.
>
> FAA flight check has numerous planes. They have a few Lear 35s, but most
> of their planes are King-Airs. All of them have 2 digit N numbers.
I used to watch the FAA conduct check flights at TEB and at other times at
SJC. They oftentimes made several runs at the approach NAVAID...on coarse
and at the limit instrument deviation. I don't know exactly what their plan
was but it was more than 1 pass.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Bob F." > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> news:1S1sk.536$p72.166@trnddc05...
>> "Alexander Avtanski" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> I checked the approach audio too - at about 24min 20sec of this
>>> recording some guy says something about "we've lost a receiver", but I
>>> can't make the rest. Here's the audio (don't forget to scroll to the
>>> 24:20 mark!):
>>>
>>> http://avtanski.net/images/var/KSJC-App-Aug-19-2008-2130Z.mp3
>>>
>>> What's this about? Just curious...
>>
>> FAA flight check uses NAV receivers in the back of the plane coupled to a
>> computer that checks the ILS equipment. They could have had some type of
>> glitch in the middle of a run which would require them to do the last run
>> over. That's my guess.
>>
>> FAA flight check has numerous planes. They have a few Lear 35s, but most
>> of their planes are King-Airs. All of them have 2 digit N numbers.
> I used to watch the FAA conduct check flights at TEB and at other times at
> SJC. They oftentimes made several runs at the approach NAVAID...on coarse
> and at the limit instrument deviation. I don't know exactly what their
> plan was but it was more than 1 pass.

The number of passes they make depends on what type of ILS it is and what
check they are doing. I've seen them take several hours to do a CAT III
ILS. For a typical CAT I ILS they will check it once per year making about
3 approaches and an arc. Every other year they will do a more extensive
check. The equipment is also checked extensively on the ground at regular
intervals.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike writes:

> The number of passes they make depends on what type of ILS it is and what
> check they are doing. I've seen them take several hours to do a CAT III
> ILS. For a typical CAT I ILS they will check it once per year making about
> 3 approaches and an arc. Every other year they will do a more extensive
> check. The equipment is also checked extensively on the ground at regular
> intervals.

How do they fly the plane with sufficient precision to make the check valid?
Or do they use methods that are independent of the precision of the aircraft's
movements (if so, what are they?)?

[Tauno Voipio]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Mike writes:
>
>
>>The number of passes they make depends on what type of ILS it is and what
>>check they are doing. I've seen them take several hours to do a CAT III
>>ILS. For a typical CAT I ILS they will check it once per year making about
>>3 approaches and an arc. Every other year they will do a more extensive
>>check. The equipment is also checked extensively on the ground at regular
>>intervals.
>
>
> How do they fly the plane with sufficient precision to make the check valid?
> Or do they use methods that are independent of the precision of the aircraft's
> movements (if so, what are they?)?


They're using differential GPS with a reference
station near the threshold, and usually also an
optical theodolite to track the approcahes.

--

Tauno Voipio (CPL(A), avionics engineer)

[Bob F.[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mike writes:
>
>> The number of passes they make depends on what type of ILS it is and what
>> check they are doing. I've seen them take several hours to do a CAT III
>> ILS. For a typical CAT I ILS they will check it once per year making
>> about
>> 3 approaches and an arc. Every other year they will do a more extensive
>> check. The equipment is also checked extensively on the ground at
>> regular
>> intervals.
>
> How do they fly the plane with sufficient precision to make the check
> valid?
> Or do they use methods that are independent of the precision of the
> aircraft's
> movements (if so, what are they?)?


There are a number of different checks that are done. Some are, and this
list is not exhaustive:
1. Installation checks.
2. Routine periodic maintenance checks.
3. Suspected problem (complaints) checks.

The Routine checks are done by simply flying a pre-defined profile and
looking for anything that is out of place. In the other cases, special
equipment is loaded and used in conjunction with regular avionics to monitor
and measure a very large list of parameters. When the data is collected and
analyzed an action plan is created and executed, and then the system is
retested to make sure the problem found is fixed. As you would imagine they
find all kinds of things like bad radios, antennae, new RF energy sources,
RF reflections not there before (new building or billboard put up), etc, and
in some cases, a problem is never found or could not be reproduced. So they
just log it and keep a watch on it.

--
Regards, BobF.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Mike writes:
>
>> The number of passes they make depends on what type of ILS it is and
>> what check they are doing. I've seen them take several hours to do a
>> CAT III ILS. For a typical CAT I ILS they will check it once per
>> year making about 3 approaches and an arc. Every other year they
>> will do a more extensive check. The equipment is also checked
>> extensively on the ground at regular intervals.
>
> How do they fly the plane with sufficient precision to make the check
> valid? Or do they use methods that are independent of the precision of
> the aircraft's movements (if so, what are they?)?


What's it to you? You don't fly.


Bertie

[Bob F.[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Mike writes:
>>
>>> The number of passes they make depends on what type of ILS it is and
>>> what check they are doing. I've seen them take several hours to do a
>>> CAT III ILS. For a typical CAT I ILS they will check it once per
>>> year making about 3 approaches and an arc. Every other year they
>>> will do a more extensive check. The equipment is also checked
>>> extensively on the ground at regular intervals.
>>
>> How do they fly the plane with sufficient precision to make the check
>> valid? Or do they use methods that are independent of the precision of
>> the aircraft's movements (if so, what are they?)?
>
>
> What's it to you? You don't fly.
>
>
> Bertie


I remember sitting at a meeting at RTCA, the same people who determine how
your avionics work, and we were having an ergonomics discussion and some
really strange issues were popping up. So I asked the question of the 20 or
so people around the table...how many of you people fly? You know what? I
was the only one. Scary isn't it.

--
Regards, BobF.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Bob F." > wrote in
:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Mike writes:
>>>
>>>> The number of passes they make depends on what type of ILS it is
>>>> and what check they are doing. I've seen them take several hours
>>>> to do a CAT III ILS. For a typical CAT I ILS they will check it
>>>> once per year making about 3 approaches and an arc. Every other
>>>> year they will do a more extensive check. The equipment is also
>>>> checked extensively on the ground at regular intervals.
>>>
>>> How do they fly the plane with sufficient precision to make the
>>> check valid? Or do they use methods that are independent of the
>>> precision of the aircraft's movements (if so, what are they?)?
>>
>>
>> What's it to you? You don't fly.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> I remember sitting at a meeting at RTCA, the same people who determine
> how your avionics work, and we were having an ergonomics discussion
> and some really strange issues were popping up. So I asked the
> question of the 20 or so people around the table...how many of you
> people fly? You know what? I was the only one. Scary isn't it.
>

That is a bit scary. Not too surprising now I think about it though.

[Mxsmanic]

Bob F. writes:

> I remember sitting at a meeting at RTCA, the same people who determine how
> your avionics work, and we were having an ergonomics discussion and some
> really strange issues were popping up. So I asked the question of the 20 or
> so people around the table...how many of you people fly? You know what? I
> was the only one. Scary isn't it.

Should it be? Ergonomics is a study in itself and largely independent of the
situation to which the study is applied. Pilots are human beings like anyone
else and their human reactions to specific types of external stimuli are
identical to those of anyone else, so general principles of ergonomy can be
applied to a cockpit without necessarily having any experience therein. The
important thing for these people to understand is how human beings and
machines interact, not the specific purpose of the interaction. Or course,
knowing a little bit about the patterns of interaction can't hurt, but they
don't have to be pilots for that (they can just put pilots in a sim and ask
them what they think).

Many people use computers all day, and they suffer fatigue from the poor
ergonomy of their work environment, but their long experience with computers
does not help them to resolve the problems with ergonomy, and they may not
even be aware of them. A specialist, however, might immediately recognize the
problems just by watching a person use the computer, and need not have any
experience using a computer herself.

Similarly, engine mechanics need not be pilots, and pilots need not be
mechanics, at least in theory. Small aircraft require a lot more knowledge of
engines than they really should, though, thanks to the ancient designs of the
powerplants.

[Bob F.[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Bob F. writes:
>
>> I remember sitting at a meeting at RTCA, the same people who determine
>> how
>> your avionics work, and we were having an ergonomics discussion and some
>> really strange issues were popping up. So I asked the question of the 20
>> or
>> so people around the table...how many of you people fly? You know what?
>> I
>> was the only one. Scary isn't it.
>
> Should it be? Ergonomics is a study in itself and largely independent of
> the
> situation to which the study is applied. Pilots are human beings like
> anyone
> else and their human reactions to specific types of external stimuli are
> identical to those of anyone else, so general principles of ergonomy can
> be
> applied to a cockpit without necessarily having any experience therein.
> The
> important thing for these people to understand is how human beings and
> machines interact, not the specific purpose of the interaction. Or
> course,
> knowing a little bit about the patterns of interaction can't hurt, but
> they
> don't have to be pilots for that (they can just put pilots in a sim and
> ask
> them what they think).
>
> Many people use computers all day, and they suffer fatigue from the poor
> ergonomy of their work environment, but their long experience with
> computers
> does not help them to resolve the problems with ergonomy, and they may not
> even be aware of them. A specialist, however, might immediately recognize
> the
> problems just by watching a person use the computer, and need not have any
> experience using a computer herself.
>
> Similarly, engine mechanics need not be pilots, and pilots need not be
> mechanics, at least in theory. Small aircraft require a lot more
> knowledge of
> engines than they really should, though, thanks to the ancient designs of
> the
> powerplants.


It was a rhetorical question without a lot of detail. And you answered it
without fully understanding the problem, just like any Senior Executive,
Politician or 12 year old. Absolutely correct, obvious, and useless to
anyone trying to get the job done. ...with no disrespect. And you included
in your answer using far more words than I did, that the underlying problem
was that no one offered experience example.

--
Regards, BobF.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 27, 8:47 am, "Bob F." > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Bob F. writes:
>
> >> I remember sitting at a meeting at RTCA, the same people who determine
> >> how
> >> your avionics work, and we were having an ergonomics discussion and some
> >> really strange issues were popping up. So I asked the question of the 20
> >> or
> >> so people around the table...how many of you people fly? You know what?
> >> I
> >> was the only one. Scary isn't it.
>
> > Should it be? Ergonomics is a study in itself and largely independent of
> > the
> > situation to which the study is applied. Pilots are human beings like
> > anyone
> > else and their human reactions to specific types of external stimuli are
> > identical to those of anyone else, so general principles of ergonomy can
> > be
> > applied to a cockpit without necessarily having any experience therein.
> > The
> > important thing for these people to understand is how human beings and
> > machines interact, not the specific purpose of the interaction. Or
> > course,
> > knowing a little bit about the patterns of interaction can't hurt, but
> > they
> > don't have to be pilots for that (they can just put pilots in a sim and
> > ask
> > them what they think).
>
> > Many people use computers all day, and they suffer fatigue from the poor
> > ergonomy of their work environment, but their long experience with
> > computers
> > does not help them to resolve the problems with ergonomy, and they may not
> > even be aware of them. A specialist, however, might immediately recognize
> > the
> > problems just by watching a person use the computer, and need not have any
> > experience using a computer herself.
>
> > Similarly, engine mechanics need not be pilots, and pilots need not be
> > mechanics, at least in theory. Small aircraft require a lot more
> > knowledge of
> > engines than they really should, though, thanks to the ancient designs of
> > the
> > powerplants.
>
> It was a rhetorical question without a lot of detail. And you answered it
> without fully understanding the problem, just like any Senior Executive,
> Politician or 12 year old. Absolutely correct, obvious, and useless to
> anyone trying to get the job done. ...with no disrespect. And you included
> in your answer using far more words than I did, that the underlying problem
> was that no one offered experience example.
>
> --
> Regards, BobF.

My sister in law was of the opinion that she was fully qualified to be
a shoe store manager because, in her words, "has bought a lot of
shoes".

[Bob F.[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> On Aug 27, 8:47 am, "Bob F." > wrote:

>> It was a rhetorical question without a lot of detail. And you answered
>> it
>> without fully understanding the problem, just like any Senior Executive,
>> Politician or 12 year old. Absolutely correct, obvious, and useless to
>> anyone trying to get the job done. ...with no disrespect. And you
>> included
>> in your answer using far more words than I did, that the underlying
>> problem
>> was that no one offered experience example.
>>
>> --
>> Regards, BobF.
>
> My sister in law was of the opinion that she was fully qualified to be
> a shoe store manager because, in her words, "has bought a lot of
> shoes".
>

Yes, I ran into a similar situation when I came across someone who said he
was a modem expert. It turned out he worked in purchasing and bought a few
modems. And, we all remember "the Flight of the Phoenix" movie.
--
Regards, BobF.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Aug 27, 8:47 am, "Bob F." > wrote:
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Bob F. writes:
>>
>> >> I remember sitting at a meeting at RTCA, the same people who
>> >> determine how
>> >> your avionics work, and we were having an ergonomics discussion
>> >> and some really strange issues were popping up. So I asked the
>> >> question of the 20 or
>> >> so people around the table...how many of you people fly? You know
>> >> what? I
>> >> was the only one. Scary isn't it.
>>
>> > Should it be? Ergonomics is a study in itself and largely
>> > independent of the
>> > situation to which the study is applied. Pilots are human beings
>> > like anyone
>> > else and their human reactions to specific types of external
>> > stimuli are identical to those of anyone else, so general
>> > principles of ergonomy can be
>> > applied to a cockpit without necessarily having any experience
>> > therein. The
>> > important thing for these people to understand is how human beings
>> > and machines interact, not the specific purpose of the interaction.
>> > Or course,
>> > knowing a little bit about the patterns of interaction can't hurt,
>> > but they
>> > don't have to be pilots for that (they can just put pilots in a sim
>> > and ask
>> > them what they think).
>>
>> > Many people use computers all day, and they suffer fatigue from the
>> > poor ergonomy of their work environment, but their long experience
>> > with computers
>> > does not help them to resolve the problems with ergonomy, and they
>> > may not even be aware of them. A specialist, however, might
>> > immediately recognize the
>> > problems just by watching a person use the computer, and need not
>> > have any experience using a computer herself.
>>
>> > Similarly, engine mechanics need not be pilots, and pilots need not
>> > be mechanics, at least in theory. Small aircraft require a lot
>> > more knowledge of
>> > engines than they really should, though, thanks to the ancient
>> > designs of the
>> > powerplants.
>>
>> It was a rhetorical question without a lot of detail. And you
>> answered it without fully understanding the problem, just like any
>> Senior Executive, Politician or 12 year old. Absolutely correct,
>> obvious, and useless to anyone trying to get the job done. ...with
>> no disrespect. And you included in your answer using far more words
>> than I did, that the underlying problem was that no one offered
>> experience example.
>>
>> --
>> Regards, BobF.
>
> My sister in law was of the opinion that she was fully qualified to be
> a shoe store manager because, in her words, "has bought a lot of
> shoes".
>
>

That's ridiculous. That would overqualify her, if anything.


Bertie