Mentally unstable airline pilot forcibly removed from flight deck

[Mxsmanic]

See

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27808624/

[terry]

On Nov 20, 2:41*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> See
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27808624/

So what are you thinking there Mxs , that there is hope for you yet?
I wouldn't hold your breath.

[Denny]

Given that the flight attendant holds a Commercial ticket and has the
instrument rating (is not current) it can be assumed that she was
capable of running a check list and handling the radio during an
approach and landing...
It is unlikely that she had 767 specific training, but the pilot knew
the systems and could direct her just the same as if he were giving
dual to a pilot going for the rating...

And the other thing is that landing the jet is not rocket science...
The cabin pressurization needed to be switched to landing mode... The
V speeds calculated (automatically displayed on the glass panel and
the pilot knows how to get those)... Flaps and gear at the proper
times - and remember to flare...
Fewer details than landing a pressurized prop twin...

ya, ya, ya, there are lots more details for the onboard PSU/power/
heating/cooling/etc/ systems, but those can all be dealt with after
landing...


denny

[Kingfish]

On Nov 20, 10:20*am, Denny > wrote:
> Given that the flight attendant holds a Commercial ticket and has the
> instrument rating (is not current) it can be assumed that she was
> capable of running a check list and handling the radio during an
> approach and landing...
> It is unlikely that she had 767 specific training, but the pilot knew
> the systems and could direct her just the same as if he were giving
> dual to a pilot going for the rating...
>
> And the other thing is that landing the jet is not rocket science...
> The cabin pressurization needed to be switched to landing mode... The
> V speeds calculated (automatically displayed on the glass panel and
> the pilot knows how to get those)... Flaps and gear at the proper
> times - and remember to flare...
> Fewer details than landing a pressurized prop twin...
>
> ya, ya, ya, there are lots more details for the onboard PSU/power/
> heating/cooling/etc/ systems, but those can all be dealt with after
> landing...
>
> denny

Remember to flare? You mean you can't three-point it? Are you reading
off a 767 descent & landing checklist there Denny? : )

Fortunately nothing out of the ordinary happned as having to deal with
an emergency in that situation would really ratchet up the stress. I'd
hope any commercial pilot could handle reading a checklist, even in a
widebody jet. What I found hysterical was the "one stewardess admitted
she held a current commercial pilot's license but said her license for
reading cockpit instruments had expired." So, I guess they had to
cover up the instruments on her side? Too funny... The media is a
hoot.

[Flyingmonk[_1_]]

On Nov 20, 10:43*am, Kingfish > wrote:
> On Nov 20, 10:20*am, Denny > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Given that the flight attendant holds a Commercial ticket and has the
> > instrument rating (is not current) it can be assumed that she was
> > capable of running a check list and handling the radio during an
> > approach and landing...
> > It is unlikely that she had 767 specific training, but the pilot knew
> > the systems and could direct her just the same as if he were giving
> > dual to a pilot going for the rating...
>
> > And the other thing is that landing the jet is not rocket science...
> > The cabin pressurization needed to be switched to landing mode... The
> > V speeds calculated (automatically displayed on the glass panel and
> > the pilot knows how to get those)... Flaps and gear at the proper
> > times - and remember to flare...
> > Fewer details than landing a pressurized prop twin...
>
> > ya, ya, ya, there are lots more details for the onboard PSU/power/
> > heating/cooling/etc/ systems, but those can all be dealt with after
> > landing...
>
> > denny
>
> Remember to flare? You mean you can't three-point it? Are you reading
> off a 767 descent & landing checklist there Denny? : )
>
> Fortunately nothing out of the ordinary happned as having to deal with
> an emergency in that situation would really ratchet up the stress. I'd
> hope any commercial pilot could handle reading a checklist, even in a
> widebody jet. What I found hysterical was the "one stewardess admitted
> she held a current commercial pilot's license but said her license for
> reading cockpit instruments had expired." So, I guess they had to
> cover up the instruments on her side? Too funny... The media is a
> hoot.

I wonder hour many hours in a B767 she got to log as instruction hours
from the capt. Hours in a B767 must be real expensive and if she had
to pay tax on that. <g>

Monk

[[email protected]]

On Nov 19, 9:41*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> See
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27808624/

That's what happens when you read R.A.P. while flying.

Godspeed Bertie!

[Beauciphus]

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
...
On Nov 20, 10:43 am, Kingfish > wrote:


>I wonder hour many hours in a B767 she got to log as instruction hours
>from the capt. Hours in a B767 must be real expensive and if she had
>to pay tax on that. <g>

>Monk

It's a good thing she's got a commercial, or else she'd end up paying her
share of the costs.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> See
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27808624/
>

What, so you se a glimmer of hope for yuo there?

You'll have to leave your apartment first.


Baby steps.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Denny > wrote in news:2dfb2455-aefb-4fa1-a1e6-
:

> Given that the flight attendant holds a Commercial ticket and has the
> instrument rating (is not current) it can be assumed that she was
> capable of running a check list and handling the radio during an
> approach and landing...
> It is unlikely that she had 767 specific training, but the pilot knew
> the systems and could direct her just the same as if he were giving
> dual to a pilot going for the rating...
>
> And the other thing is that landing the jet is not rocket science...
> The cabin pressurization needed to be switched to landing mode... The
> V speeds calculated (automatically displayed on the glass panel and
> the pilot knows how to get those)... Flaps and gear at the proper
> times - and remember to flare...
> Fewer details than landing a pressurized prop twin...

Actually, none of that is true for the 767.

the cabin is automatic, the destination landing elevation having been
set before departure, the V speeds do not come up on Efis on a 767, they
come from the FMS and are set the old fashioned way with bugs on the ASI
and the flaps and gear thing is the same with one or two guys.
any large jet can easily be flown single hadned, though. Even the old
ones with FEs need very little doing if everything is working OK.
>
> ya, ya, ya, there are lots more details for the onboard PSU/power/
> heating/cooling/etc/ systems, but those can all be dealt with after
> landing...

Actually, there's very little to do there in a 767. After landing you
just retract the speedbrakes, pull the flaps up, turn off the xponder
and radar and that's pretty much it.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:ac52dabc-2ebc-491e-abb9-c40cf516edf4
@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 19, 9:41*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> See
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27808624/
>
> That's what happens when you read R.A.P. while flying.
>
> Godspeed Bertie!
>

Oi!

Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Denny writes:

> Given that the flight attendant holds a Commercial ticket and has the
> instrument rating (is not current) it can be assumed that she was
> capable of running a check list and handling the radio during an
> approach and landing...

Yes. Indeed, one doesn't need a commercial license or instrument rating to do
that.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

Anthony, this presumes that one would know what a three dimensional radio
looked like, how to key a mike, where the switches were located, all in a
real airplane that was actually in the air. Of course, you have no
experience in these matters at all.

[terry]

On Nov 21, 4:49*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Denny > wrote in news:2dfb2455-aefb-4fa1-a1e6-
> :
>
> > Given that the flight attendant holds a Commercial ticket and has the
> > instrument rating (is not current) it can be assumed that she was
> > capable of running a check list and handling the radio during an
> > approach and landing...
> > It is unlikely that she had 767 specific training, but the pilot knew
> > the systems and could direct her just the same as if he were giving
> > dual to a pilot going for the rating...
>
> > And the other thing is that landing the jet is not rocket science...
> > The cabin pressurization needed to be switched to landing mode... The
> > V speeds calculated (automatically displayed on the glass panel and
> > the pilot knows how to get those)... Flaps and gear at the proper
> > times - and remember to flare...
> > Fewer details than landing a pressurized prop twin...
>
> Actually, none of that is true for the 767.
>
> the cabin is automatic, the destination landing elevation having been
> set before departure, the V speeds do not come up on Efis on a 767, they
> come from the FMS and are set the old fashioned way with bugs on the ASI
> and the flaps and gear thing is the same with one or two guys.
> any large jet can easily be flown single hadned, though. Even the old
> ones with FEs need very little doing if everything is working OK.
>
>
>
> > ya, ya, ya, there are lots more details for the onboard PSU/power/
> > heating/cooling/etc/ systems, but those can all be dealt with after
> > landing...
>
> Actually, there's very little to do there in a 767. After landing you
> just retract the speedbrakes, pull the flaps up, turn off the xponder
> and radar and that's pretty much it.
>
> Bertie

Saw a similar comment from a heavy captain on aus.aviation. So why
would they even bother to ask if there was a pilot on board and scare
the **** out of the pax for no reason.

[george]

On Nov 21, 8:32*am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> Anthony, this presumes that one would know what a three dimensional radio
> looked like, how to key a mike, where the switches were located, all in a
> real airplane that was actually in the air. Of course, you have no
> experience in these matters at all.

Can you imagine Anthony doing a cockpit check in less that twenty
minutes :-)
With the manual open at the correct pages

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

He wouldn't be able to fit his lard ass into the seat, let alone run the
check list. Then, he's probably get to the third item and argue about it.

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> Saw a similar comment from a heavy captain on aus.aviation. So why
> would they even bother to ask if there was a pilot on board and scare
> the **** out of the pax for no reason.

The pilot may have felt that someone else with piloting experience would be
better at providing assistance than someone with none. However, in this type
of situation, that isn't necessarily so. While a trained pilot would almost
certainly not be worse, he might not be better, either. You need someone who
can follow instructions, not necessarily someone who knows how to fly. A
pilot might understand the instructions more easily at first, but he might
also be less inclined to do exactly as he is told, which could present a
hazard that outweighs the utility of his piloting experience.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
>
>> Saw a similar comment from a heavy captain on aus.aviation. So why
>> would they even bother to ask if there was a pilot on board and scare
>> the **** out of the pax for no reason.
>
> The pilot may have felt that someone else with piloting experience would be
> better at providing assistance than someone with none. However, in this type
> of situation, that isn't necessarily so. While a trained pilot would almost
> certainly not be worse, he might not be better, either. You need someone who
> can follow instructions, not necessarily someone who knows how to fly. A
> pilot might understand the instructions more easily at first, but he might
> also be less inclined to do exactly as he is told, which could present a
> hazard that outweighs the utility of his piloting experience.

Your total lack of knowledge of piloting physical aircraft leads you
to a delusional conclusion.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> terry writes:
>
>> Saw a similar comment from a heavy captain on aus.aviation. So why
>> would they even bother to ask if there was a pilot on board and scare
>> the **** out of the pax for no reason.
>
> The pilot may have felt that someone else with piloting experience
> would be better at providing assistance than someone with none.
> However, in this type of situation, that isn't necessarily so. While
> a trained pilot would almost certainly not be worse, he might not be
> better, either. You need someone who can follow instructions, not
> necessarily someone who knows how to fly. A pilot might understand
> the instructions more easily at first, but he might also be less
> inclined to do exactly as he is told, which could present a hazard
> that outweighs the utility of his piloting experience.
>


You're an idiot.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

terry > wrote in news:a8a86859-ec2a-4475-9111-
:

> On Nov 21, 4:49*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Denny > wrote in news:2dfb2455-aefb-4fa1-a1e6-
>> :
>>
>> > Given that the flight attendant holds a Commercial ticket and has
the
>> > instrument rating (is not current) it can be assumed that she was
>> > capable of running a check list and handling the radio during an
>> > approach and landing...
>> > It is unlikely that she had 767 specific training, but the pilot
knew
>> > the systems and could direct her just the same as if he were giving
>> > dual to a pilot going for the rating...
>>
>> > And the other thing is that landing the jet is not rocket
science...
>> > The cabin pressurization needed to be switched to landing mode...
The
>> > V speeds calculated (automatically displayed on the glass panel and
>> > the pilot knows how to get those)... Flaps and gear at the proper
>> > times - and remember to flare...
>> > Fewer details than landing a pressurized prop twin...
>>
>> Actually, none of that is true for the 767.
>>
>> the cabin is automatic, the destination landing elevation having been
>> set before departure, the V speeds do not come up on Efis on a 767,
they
>> come from the FMS and are set the old fashioned way with bugs on the
ASI
>> and the flaps and gear thing is the same with one or two guys.
>> any large jet can easily be flown single hadned, though. Even the old
>> ones with FEs need very little doing if everything is working OK.
>>
>>
>>
>> > ya, ya, ya, there are lots more details for the onboard PSU/power/
>> > heating/cooling/etc/ systems, but those can all be dealt with after
>> > landing...
>>
>> Actually, there's very little to do there in a 767. After landing you
>> just retract the speedbrakes, pull the flaps up, turn off the xponder
>> and radar and that's pretty much it.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Saw a similar comment from a heavy captain on aus.aviation. So why
> would they even bother to ask if there was a pilot on board and scare
> the **** out of the pax for no reason.
>

No harm to have her there. He could have given her some pretty simple
tasks Just to take some of the load off. Even someone like that might be
more work than they save you, though. Depends.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Denny writes:
>
>> Given that the flight attendant holds a Commercial ticket and has the
>> instrument rating (is not current) it can be assumed that she was
>> capable of running a check list and handling the radio during an
>> approach and landing...
>
> Yes. Indeed, one doesn't need a commercial license or instrument
> rating to do that.
>

Takes more than you got, fukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

george > wrote in
:

> On Nov 21, 8:32*am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
>> Anthony, this presumes that one would know what a three dimensional
>> radio looked like, how to key a mike, where the switches were
>> located, all in a real airplane that was actually in the air. Of
>> course, you have no experience in these matters at all.
>
> Can you imagine Anthony doing a cockpit check in less that twenty
> minutes :-)
> With the manual open at the correct pages
>

he'd have to huff O2 just to deal with being outside his apartment


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in news:nrkVk.7583$yr3.5292
@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com:

> He wouldn't be able to fit his lard ass into the seat, let alone run the
> check list. Then, he's probably get to the third item and argue about it.
>
>
>
>

probably?

I've flown wiht FOs a bit like him. You just have to tell yourself ("well,
if he gets too bad, there'a always the crash axe"



Bertie

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

Anthony, you're entirely correct- the pilot should have asked for anyone who
has ever played Microsoft Flight Simulator, rather than another pilot.

By your twisted logic that individual would have done better than a
commercial pilot.

Go figure.

[Bob Crawford]

On Nov 20, 2:42*pm, terry > wrote:
> Saw *a similar comment from a heavy captain on aus.aviation. *So why
> would they even bother to ask if there was a pilot on board and scare
> the **** out of the pax for no reason.

No such announcement was made to the pax. From the actual report:
"Prior to descent, the Commander asked the Incharge Flight Attendant
to go the Passenger Information List (PIL) to see if there were any
flight crew on board who might be available to assist on the Flight
deck for the remainder of the flight. In the event no line pilots were
on board, but one of the Cabin attendants held a Commercial Pilot’s
Licence, with a Multi-engine Rating, and a non-current Instrument
Rating. The Commander requested that the Flight Attendant occupy the
right-hand (First Officers) seat for the remainder of the flight to
assist as necessary."
http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/11139-0.pdf

[terry]

On Nov 21, 11:35*pm, Bob Crawford > wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2:42*pm, terry > wrote:
>
> > Saw *a similar comment from a heavy captain on aus.aviation. *So why
> > would they even bother to ask if there was a pilot on board and scare
> > the **** out of the pax for no reason.
>
> No such announcement was made to the pax. *From the actual report:
> "Prior to descent, the Commander asked the Incharge Flight Attendant
> to go the Passenger Information List (PIL) to see if there were any
> flight crew on board who might be available to assist on the Flight
> deck for the remainder of the flight. In the event no line pilots were
> on board, but one of the Cabin attendants held a Commercial Pilot’s
> Licence, with a Multi-engine Rating, and a non-current Instrument
> Rating. The Commander requested that the Flight Attendant occupy the
> right-hand (First Officers) seat for the remainder of the flight to
> assist as necessary."http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/11139-0.pdf

OK, that makes sense.

[terry]

On Nov 21, 11:16*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > Saw *a similar comment from a heavy captain on aus.aviation. *So why
> > would they even bother to ask if there was a pilot on board and scare
> > the **** out of the pax for no reason.
>
> The pilot may have felt that someone else with piloting experience would be
> better at providing assistance than someone with none. *However, in this type
> of situation, that isn't necessarily so. *While a trained pilot would almost
> certainly not be worse, he might not be better, either. *You need someone who
> can follow instructions, not necessarily someone who knows how to fly. *A
> pilot might understand the instructions more easily at first, but he might
> also be less inclined to do exactly as he is told, which could present a
> hazard that outweighs the utility of his piloting experience.

Thanks for that Mxs. I'll take that on board ( after applying an
appropriate weighting factor)

[[email protected]]

On Nov 20, 6:55*pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > terry writes:
>
> >> Saw *a similar comment from a heavy captain on aus.aviation. *So why
> >> would they even bother to ask if there was a pilot on board and scare
> >> the **** out of the pax for no reason.
>
> > The pilot may have felt that someone else with piloting experience would be
> > better at providing assistance than someone with none. *However, in this type
> > of situation, that isn't necessarily so. *While a trained pilot would almost
> > certainly not be worse, he might not be better, either. *You need someone who
> > can follow instructions, not necessarily someone who knows how to fly. *A
> > pilot might understand the instructions more easily at first, but he might
> > also be less inclined to do exactly as he is told, which could present a
> > hazard that outweighs the utility of his piloting experience.
>
> Your total lack of knowledge of piloting physical aircraft leads you
> to a delusional conclusion.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Accident reports involving poor cockpit management don't agree with
you. And a personal slam doesn't constitute a well considered
rebuttal either. I for one would like to know why you think his
response was delusional and without bringing up "sims".

[[email protected]]

On Nov 20, 7:17*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> terry > wrote in news:a8a86859-ec2a-4475-9111-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 4:49*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Denny > wrote in news:2dfb2455-aefb-4fa1-a1e6-
> >> :
>
> >> > Given that the flight attendant holds a Commercial ticket and has
> the
> >> > instrument rating (is not current) it can be assumed that she was
> >> > capable of running a check list and handling the radio during an
> >> > approach and landing...
> >> > It is unlikely that she had 767 specific training, but the pilot
> knew
> >> > the systems and could direct her just the same as if he were giving
> >> > dual to a pilot going for the rating...
>
> >> > And the other thing is that landing the jet is not rocket
> science...
> >> > The cabin pressurization needed to be switched to landing mode...
> The
> >> > V speeds calculated (automatically displayed on the glass panel and
> >> > the pilot knows how to get those)... Flaps and gear at the proper
> >> > times - and remember to flare...
> >> > Fewer details than landing a pressurized prop twin...
>
> >> Actually, none of that is true for the 767.
>
> >> the cabin is automatic, the destination landing elevation having been
> >> set before departure, the V speeds do not come up on Efis on a 767,
> they
> >> come from the FMS and are set the old fashioned way with bugs on the
> ASI
> >> and the flaps and gear thing is the same with one or two guys.
> >> any large jet can easily be flown single hadned, though. Even the old
> >> ones with FEs need very little doing if everything is working OK.
>
> >> > ya, ya, ya, there are lots more details for the onboard PSU/power/
> >> > heating/cooling/etc/ systems, but those can all be dealt with after
> >> > landing...
>
> >> Actually, there's very little to do there in a 767. After landing you
> >> just retract the speedbrakes, pull the flaps up, turn off the xponder
> >> and radar and that's pretty much it.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Saw *a similar comment from a heavy captain on aus.aviation. *So why
> > would they even bother to ask if there was a pilot on board and scare
> > the **** out of the pax for no reason.
>
> No harm to have her there. He could have given her some pretty simple
> tasks Just to take some of the load off. Even someone like that might be
> more work than they save you, though. Depends.
>
> Bertie

Amazing. That sounds remarkably similar to what Mxs said.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
On Nov 20, 6:55 pm, wrote:
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Accident reports involving poor cockpit management don't agree with
you. And a personal slam doesn't constitute a well considered
rebuttal either. I for one would like to know why you think his
response was delusional and without bringing up "sims".

-------------------------------------------------------

What accident reports do you have, that would indicate a pilot in this
situation, would be less likely to do as he was told?

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> On Nov 20, 6:55Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > terry writes:
>>
>> >> Saw Â*a similar comment from a heavy captain on aus.aviation. Â*So why
>> >> would they even bother to ask if there was a pilot on board and scare
>> >> the **** out of the pax for no reason.
>>
>> > The pilot may have felt that someone else with piloting experience would be
>> > better at providing assistance than someone with none. Â*However, in this type
>> > of situation, that isn't necessarily so. Â*While a trained pilot would almost
>> > certainly not be worse, he might not be better, either. Â*You need someone who
>> > can follow instructions, not necessarily someone who knows how to fly. Â*A
>> > pilot might understand the instructions more easily at first, but he might
>> > also be less inclined to do exactly as he is told, which could present a
>> > hazard that outweighs the utility of his piloting experience.
>>
>> Your total lack of knowledge of piloting physical aircraft leads you
>> to a delusional conclusion.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> Accident reports involving poor cockpit management don't agree with
> you. And a personal slam doesn't constitute a well considered
> rebuttal either. I for one would like to know why you think his
> response was delusional and without bringing up "sims".

Start with "You need someone who can follow instructions,".

You do realize what this thread is about, and it isn't CRM?

If his post made any sense at all, the copilot would ALWAYS be someone
who knew nothing about piloting, which is a rediculous conclusion.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Beauciphus]

> wrote in message
...
On Nov 20, 6:55 pm, wrote:
> Your total lack of knowledge of piloting physical aircraft leads you
> to a delusional conclusion.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

>And a personal slam doesn't constitute a well considered
>rebuttal either. I for one would like to know why you think his
>response was delusional and without bringing up "sims".

MrsManic isn't worthy of a well considered response.

Consider this: The pilot asks the 'helper' to get the altimeter setting from
the destination field.

How many other instructions do you think a non-pilot would need before being
able to provide that information?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bob Crawford" > wrote

No such announcement was made to the pax. From the actual report:
"Prior to descent, the Commander asked the Incharge Flight Attendant
to go the Passenger Information List (PIL) to see if there were any
flight crew on board who might be available to assist on the Flight
deck for the remainder of the flight. In the event no line pilots were
on board, but one of the Cabin attendants held a Commercial Pilot’s
Licence, with a Multi-engine Rating, and a non-current Instrument
Rating. The Commander requested that the Flight Attendant occupy the
right-hand (First Officers) seat for the remainder of the flight to
assist as necessary."
http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/11139-0.pdf

What an excellent report. Well written, and easy to read and understand.

It sounds to me that the Captain did as well as anyone could possibly do,
for the difficult situation that was taking place. I can not imagine anyone
could have done better, and the flight attendant that stepped in for the FO
did pretty darn well, too.

When the **** hits the fan, the training and level headed response displayed
is what was called for, and was given. I can't imagine a psycho simmer
could have contributed, in any positive way.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Start with "You need someone who can follow instructions,".

People who don't know how to do something have no choice but to follow
instructions in order to do it. This can be an advantage when you want
someone who will follow instructions without deviation.

> If his post made any sense at all, the copilot would ALWAYS be someone
> who knew nothing about piloting, which is a rediculous conclusion.

That does not follow.

[Mxsmanic]

Beauciphus writes:

> Consider this: The pilot asks the 'helper' to get the altimeter setting from
> the destination field.

Unlikely. The pilot can ask for that himself, if he needs it, although ATC
will spontaneously provide it at some point. And he can hear the reply, so it
need not pass through his "helper."

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Start with "You need someone who can follow instructions,".
>
> People who don't know how to do something have no choice but to follow
> instructions in order to do it. This can be an advantage when you want
> someone who will follow instructions without deviation.

The entire purpose of having a copilot is to relieve the pilot of
workload.

Having an ignorant copilot adds to the workload as not only does the
pilot have to tell them what to do, he has to tell them how to do it.

As for not doing what they are told to do, all pilots of real airplanes,
which is what the person in queston is, understand the concept of PIC and
copilot, something you obviously do not.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Beauciphus writes:
>
>> Consider this: The pilot asks the 'helper' to get the altimeter setting from
>> the destination field.
>
> Unlikely. The pilot can ask for that himself, if he needs it, although ATC
> will spontaneously provide it at some point. And he can hear the reply, so it
> need not pass through his "helper."

You really don't understand the concept of copilot, do you?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Robert Moore]

wrote
> the concept of PIC and copilot, something you obviously do not.

The proper concept is PIC and SIC or Pilot and Copilot.

Bob Moore

[[email protected]]

Robert Moore > wrote:
> wrote
>> the concept of PIC and copilot, something you obviously do not.
>
> The proper concept is PIC and SIC or Pilot and Copilot.
>
> Bob Moore

Do you really think mx would have a clue what "SIC" means?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The entire purpose of having a copilot is to relieve the pilot of
> workload.

We are not talking about a copilot here. We are talking about a substitute
for a copilot. Airliners are designed to be flown by two fully qualified
pilots, not one qualified pilot and one other person of uncertain
qualifications.

> Having an ignorant copilot adds to the workload as not only does the
> pilot have to tell them what to do, he has to tell them how to do it.

There isn't much to explain. Most people can move levers and push buttons, so
no explanation of that is required. All they really have to do is carry out
instructions. The only physical objects that require any kind of prior
instruction are the flight controls themselves, and those will not be used by
the substitute pilot. Things like landing levers may have latches or other
minor safety devices, but those can be explained in a few seconds ... and even
experienced pilots will require those brief explanations unless by some
miraculous coincidence they are already checked out on the aircraft in
question.

> As for not doing what they are told to do, all pilots of real airplanes,
> which is what the person in queston is, understand the concept of PIC and
> copilot, something you obviously do not.

If that were true, crew resource management training would be a waste of time.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Do you really think mx would have a clue what "SIC" means?

Do you?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You really don't understand the concept of copilot, do you?

Which airliners have you flown?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> The entire purpose of having a copilot is to relieve the pilot of
>> workload.
>
> We are not talking about a copilot here.

Yes, we are.

> We are talking about a substitute
> for a copilot.

Babbling nonsense.

>> As for not doing what they are told to do, all pilots of real airplanes,
>> which is what the person in queston is, understand the concept of PIC and
>> copilot, something you obviously do not.
>
> If that were true, crew resource management training would be a waste of time.

Non sequitur.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> You really don't understand the concept of copilot, do you?
>
> Which airliners have you flown?

Which airplanes of any type have you flown?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Which airplanes of any type have you flown?

I've flown airliners in simulation, which provides me with some knowledge of
procedures.

Which airliners have you flown, in simulation or in real life? If you haven't
flown any, what knowledge of procedures have you acquired, and how?

[terry]

On Nov 22, 8:55*am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Bob Crawford" > wrote
>
> No such announcement was made to the pax. *From the actual report:
> "Prior to descent, the Commander asked the Incharge Flight Attendant
> to go the Passenger Information List (PIL) to see if there were any
> flight crew on board who might be available to assist on the Flight
> deck for the remainder of the flight. In the event no line pilots were
> on board, but one of the Cabin attendants held a Commercial Pilot’s
> Licence, with a Multi-engine Rating, and a non-current Instrument
> Rating. The Commander requested that the Flight Attendant occupy the
> right-hand (First Officers) seat for the remainder of the flight to
> assist as necessary."http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/11139-0.pdf
>
> What an excellent report. *Well written, and easy to read and understand.
>
> It sounds to me that the Captain did as well as anyone could possibly do,
> for the difficult situation that was taking place. *I can not imagine anyone
> could have done better, and the flight attendant that stepped in for the FO
> did pretty darn well, too.
>
> When the **** hits the fan, the training and level headed response displayed
> is what was called for, and was given. *I can't imagine a psycho simmer
> could have contributed, in any positive way.

Especially one that gets nervous "flying" a sim.

You gotta read his flight blogs....

"Landing at Jean still made me nervous. The charts provide elevations
but not in great detail. There are some low mountains around the
airport, except to the east. As I came in, I occasionally saw my
landing light on terrain below—terrain that was surprisingly close. I
also saw lights on the ground appearing and disappearing, telling me
that there was terrain in between me and the lights. For an instant,
even the threshold lights on the runway were blocked, which definitely
kept me alert. Fortunately, I landed uneventfully, even with the wind
behind me (flying a pattern in the darkness didn't appeal to me, and
the runway is long enough)."

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Which airplanes of any type have you flown?
>
> I've flown airliners in simulation, which provides me with some knowledge of
> procedures.

Delusional.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in :

>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> On Nov 20, 6:55 pm, wrote:
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> Accident reports involving poor cockpit management don't agree with
> you. And a personal slam doesn't constitute a well considered
> rebuttal either. I for one would like to know why you think his
> response was delusional and without bringing up "sims".
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> What accident reports do you have, that would indicate a pilot in this
> situation, would be less likely to do as he was told?
>
>
>

You are an idiot.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:56e83170-7d52-480d-b575-69dd3020f8b2
@k41g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 20, 7:17*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> terry > wrote in news:a8a86859-ec2a-4475-9111-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 21, 4:49*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Denny > wrote in news:2dfb2455-aefb-4fa1-a1e6-
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > Given that the flight attendant holds a Commercial ticket and
has
>> the
>> >> > instrument rating (is not current) it can be assumed that she
was
>> >> > capable of running a check list and handling the radio during an
>> >> > approach and landing...
>> >> > It is unlikely that she had 767 specific training, but the pilot
>> knew
>> >> > the systems and could direct her just the same as if he were
giving
>> >> > dual to a pilot going for the rating...
>>
>> >> > And the other thing is that landing the jet is not rocket
>> science...
>> >> > The cabin pressurization needed to be switched to landing
mode...
>> The
>> >> > V speeds calculated (automatically displayed on the glass panel
and
>> >> > the pilot knows how to get those)... Flaps and gear at the
proper
>> >> > times - and remember to flare...
>> >> > Fewer details than landing a pressurized prop twin...
>>
>> >> Actually, none of that is true for the 767.
>>
>> >> the cabin is automatic, the destination landing elevation having
been
>> >> set before departure, the V speeds do not come up on Efis on a
767,
>> they
>> >> come from the FMS and are set the old fashioned way with bugs on
the
>> ASI
>> >> and the flaps and gear thing is the same with one or two guys.
>> >> any large jet can easily be flown single hadned, though. Even the
old
>> >> ones with FEs need very little doing if everything is working OK.
>>
>> >> > ya, ya, ya, there are lots more details for the onboard
PSU/power/
>> >> > heating/cooling/etc/ systems, but those can all be dealt with
after
>> >> > landing...
>>
>> >> Actually, there's very little to do there in a 767. After landing
you
>> >> just retract the speedbrakes, pull the flaps up, turn off the
xponder
>> >> and radar and that's pretty much it.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Saw *a similar comment from a heavy captain on aus.aviation. *So wh
> y
>> > would they even bother to ask if there was a pilot on board and
scare
>> > the **** out of the pax for no reason.
>>
>> No harm to have her there. He could have given her some pretty simple
>> tasks Just to take some of the load off. Even someone like that might
be
>> more work than they save you, though. Depends.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Amazing. That sounds remarkably similar to what Mxs said.
>



Actually, no it doesn't.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bob Crawford" > wrote
>
> No such announcement was made to the pax. From the actual report:
> "Prior to descent, the Commander asked the Incharge Flight Attendant
> to go the Passenger Information List (PIL) to see if there were any
> flight crew on board who might be available to assist on the Flight
> deck for the remainder of the flight. In the event no line pilots were
> on board, but one of the Cabin attendants held a Commercial Pilot’s
> Licence, with a Multi-engine Rating, and a non-current Instrument
> Rating. The Commander requested that the Flight Attendant occupy the
> right-hand (First Officers) seat for the remainder of the flight to
> assist as necessary."
> http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/11139-0.pdf
>
> What an excellent report. Well written, and easy to read and
> understand.
>
> It sounds to me that the Captain did as well as anyone could possibly
> do, for the difficult situation that was taking place. I can not
> imagine anyone could have done better, and the flight attendant that
> stepped in for the FO did pretty darn well, too.
>
> When the **** hits the fan, the training and level headed response
> displayed is what was called for, and was given. I can't imagine a
> psycho simmer could have contributed, in any positive way.

Can't imagine you contributing in any positive way either.

just a constsant stream of irrelevant BS..


Bertie

[Beauciphus]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:

> I've flown airliners in simulation, which provides me with some knowledge
> of
> procedures.

Yet you use an incorrect procedure for getting the altimeter setting at the
destination field.

[Mxsmanic]

Beauciphus writes:

> Yet you use an incorrect procedure for getting the altimeter setting at the
> destination field.

What is the correct procedure, then?

In simulation, you can press B to get the current altimeter setting. Offline,
you can listen to the ATIS of the nearest field. Online, you can ask ATC or
check the current ATIS or METAR of the nearest field.

For the destination field, you can tune the ATIS if it's within range and you
are offline (sometimes online also), or you can ask ATC, or you can check the
current METAR (online).

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Beauciphus writes:
>
>> Yet you use an incorrect procedure for getting the altimeter setting at the
>> destination field.
>
> What is the correct procedure, then?
>
> In simulation, you can press B to get the current altimeter setting.

I looked all over my airplane and couldn't find a "B" to press, so then
I looked in some other airplanes; no "B" in any of them.

I guess at my next annual I'll have to have a "B" installed.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[george]

Anthony wrote and was quoted :
> Fortunately, I landed uneventfully, even with the wind
> behind me (flying a pattern in the darkness didn't appeal to me, and
> the runway is long enough)."

Well pointed out Terry.
It seems that sims have different laws than we ordinary pilots who fly
real aeroplanes

[george]

wrote:

> I looked all over my airplane and couldn't find a "B" to press, so then
> I looked in some other airplanes; no "B" in any of them.
>
> I guess at my next annual I'll have to have a "B" installed.

He probably means the BS button and its been used so often by him the
S is worn off

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> It seems that sims have different laws than we ordinary pilots who fly
> real aeroplanes

Where is the difference, in this case?

[Beauciphus]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Beauciphus writes:

> In simulation, you can press B to get the current altimeter setting.
> Offline,
> you can listen to the ATIS of the nearest field. Online, you can ask ATC
> or
> check the current ATIS or METAR of the nearest field.
>
> For the destination field, you can tune the ATIS if it's within range and
> you
> are offline (sometimes online also), or you can ask ATC, or you can check
> the
> current METAR (online).

None of the simulators I've used have a B button or online or offline mode.
It sounds like you're describibg a video game.

[Mxsmanic]

Beauciphus writes:

> None of the simulators I've used have a B button or online or offline mode.

The buttons on many simulators are in front of the instructor, not the pilot.
Desktop sims don't have an instructor, so the pilot handles everything.

Online and offline modes refer to live connections to flight simulation
networks, a standard feature on modern desktop simulators. The main advantage
of networks for simming is that you can get realistic ATC from real people.

> It sounds like you're describibg a video game.

I don't know of any video games that have features like this. Then again, I
have little experience with video games.

[Beauciphus]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> I don't know of any video games that have features like this. Then again,
> I
> have little experience with video games.

It sounds to me like you have lots of experience with video games, you just
lie about it.

[Mxsmanic]

Beauciphus writes:

> It sounds to me like you have lots of experience with video games, you just
> lie about it.

I'm not sure what gives you that impression. I'm interested mainly in
simulation. The program I have that comes closest to a game is online chess
(although some might hold that chess is actually a war simulation).

[[email protected]]

Beauciphus > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I don't know of any video games that have features like this. Then again,
>> I
>> have little experience with video games.
>
> It sounds to me like you have lots of experience with video games, you just
> lie about it.

Nah, he's delusional and really beleives what he is saying.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Nov 19, 7:41*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> See
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27808624/

Is this real or simulated? It would be useful to clarify since I never
seem to know around here anymore.

-Robert

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> Is this real or simulated?

Unfortunately, this incident was real.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> It seems that sims have different laws than we ordinary pilots who fly
>> real aeroplanes
>
> Where is the difference, in this case?
>

You are an idiot.

Bertie

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

If you're interested in simulation, than you should go to Simcomm or Flight
Safety, and not play the computer game MSFS.

Of course, you know as little about real sims as you do about actual flying,
since you've done neither.

On the other hand, if your primary interest is in simulation, you should go
away and bother the people on the sim groups, since this NG is about
piloting, as in real airplanes.