Mentally unstable airline pilot forcibly removed from flight deck

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?

"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

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.

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."

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

writes:

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

Do you?