Mentally unstable airline pilot forcibly removed from flight deck

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

"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

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.

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

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.

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)

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".

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.

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?

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.