Boarding with engines running

Crash Lander writes:

ROFLMAO! Go on! Name one! Assuming you do pull a name that you, at least,
consider a friend, he'd do exactly what he does at your place while you sim
fly!

You haven't answered my question: What are my friends (who supposedly chipped
in for the cost of a flight) going to do while I'm flying?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
You haven't answered my question: What are my friends (who supposedly
chipped
in for the cost of a flight) going to do while I'm flying?

Well, heaven forbid they would use the time to have a conversation with you!
Possibly even maybe enjoy the scenery? You know! The kind of things 'normal'
people do!
Crash Lander

On Feb 23, 8:04 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Is it safe/advisable to board a small single- or twin-engined aircraft while
the prop(s) and engine(s) are turning? I'm just wondering if this is feasible
if you just have someone getting on or getting off (with the pilot being in
the aircraft the whole time).

On a related note, how long can you safely leave an aircraft (engines off)
with just the parking brake set, and when do you normally put chocks under the
wheels?

Use the pause button when boarding imaginary passengers. If you're
leaving the simulated aircraft for a longer period, power down the PC.

And don't think for a moment that the pretend controllers give a rats
ass about how long you leave the simulated plane on the pretend ramp
while boarding imaginary passengers.

On Feb 25, 10:54 pm, Mxsmanic wrote: brevity
snip

You haven't answered my question:

Your questions have never been answered to your satisfaction, probably
because you suffer symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome, among other anti-
social ailments.

What are my friends (who supposedly chipped
in for the cost of a flight) going to do while I'm flying?

Let them supposedly jackoff on the back of your neck. Who gives a
****?
------

- gpsman

Mxsmanic wrote:
The nearest airport is about 15 miles away.

********, Europe's covered in airports. My money's still with the bog
theory.

I presume you don't live in Europe.

No, I live in LA, where everything is 4 times as expensive as it is in
other parts of the country, and 5 times what it cost to make.

And what are my friends going to do while I'm flying?

Enjoy the scenery?
Have a conversation with you?
Take the controls for a bit, to give 'em a taste for flight?
Enjoy the destination?

Unfortunately, it's much more than putting a name and address on a form.

Oh sure, there's space for things like your height, and weight, age,
that sort of thing. Not like you have to sign in blood or anything.

But the medical doesn't address
fitness, it addresses a long list of imaginary issues.

Does too, and those "imaginary" issues will become quite real and
apparent if you happen to have one in the middle of executing pilotary
duties. Thus, we have medical screening, which for private licenses and
GA aircraft, is about as menial as one can get (hardly more than a
bog-standard physical).

That proves my point. Most people don't rent or have fractional ownership of
their cars.

Every car under lease is rented from the car company, and every car
financed through a loan company is equitable to a fractional ownership
(in that you own your portion of the car so far paid).

Besides, many fractional ownerships get you access to a fleet of
hundreds of ready-to-fly machines, all over the country. I doubt anyone
keeps that many cars around.

Pulling negative Gs at altitude would greatly increase that probability.

Thus why most flight is conducted at bog-standard 1G, worry-wart.

But the real risk is that of an accident.

So utterly minimal with healthy piloting technique that it's hardly
worth considering.

After three hours or so, it's time to go again, depending on many variables.

You wouldn't want to sit still for three hours anyway.

Except that they aren't, as IFR flight proves, and as the accidents of pilots
flying in IMC without special training amply demonstrates.

Not only are your enumerations vastly overstated, what it "proves" is
that stress and unfamiliarity with proper procedure kills far more
people that out-of-the-blue accidents do. Thus, training programs strive
to teach applicable techniques, and even go so far as to put students
INTO those kinds of situations, so they can experience them personally
(and so be a less stressful situation, should it occur).

In any case, the vast majority of unqualified pilots do their civic duty
and stay well clear of things they're not supposed to be in.

Not only are the
largely unnecessary, but they are often worse than unnecessary, because they
are distracting and misleading.

You say again, having never felt them or used them.

I have felt them myself. I've been in a plane, just not at the controls. But
the whole plane moves, not just the cockpit.

Passenger flights in a jet don't count, dear. Airline pilots are paid to
make the flight as smooth and unperturbed as possible (as all pilots
strive for). You would **** yourself at the real workload to keep a
plane doing what it's supposed to do.

That depends on the flying environment. It's a lot more numbers and formulas
than seat of the pants.

I do not share this romantic illusion.

Tell me, then what roll rate is required for a 737-800 to roll wings
level at 250 knots and 10,000 feet on a heading of 030 with a wind from
the south at 10 knots, as the plane turns on standard rate west to east?

With certain key omissions. A perfect simulation of reality would not be a
simulation, nor would it serve much purpose.

Sounds like you need to look "simulation" up again.

What good, then, does a full-motion simulator serve to an airline pilot
practicing catastrophic failure scenarios? Surely, he doesn't need to
know what the plane will feel like it's doing? He could much more easily
reach the correct switches in the correct time and order if the deck
weren't gallaphanting about? When practicing in-cabin fires, it's much
too bothersome to use simulated smoke; how else could people see those
little guidance lights in the aisles to find the exits?

Hypocrisy, thy name is Manic.

Try me. I wouldn't mind a few hours in a 737 simulator. Specifically, a
737-800. I'm working on the 747-400.

What's the seventh step in the Engine out-In flight checklist?

Then why do so many of them crash?

That's the point. THEY DON'T. Hundreds upon thousands of GA flights
begin and end without any incident whatsoever.

Well, at least you made me smile.

That's what I do.

In contrast, I could have easily predicted the tone and perhaps even the words
of your post. I'm used to it.

Consistency's a bitch, innit?

If such predication was actually possible, you will have understood the
meaning of my post, digested it's particularly chosen verbiage, and
taken the long walk off a short pier you so desperately deserve. Since,
in point of fact, you did not, I will take that to mean that both A):
You didn't really get it, and B): you can't really predict my posts, and
are thus, once again, proven a feckless liar.

TheSmokingGnu

Crash Lander writes:

Well, heaven forbid they would use the time to have a conversation with you!

Indeed. If I'm paying $250 an hour to fly a tin can, I don't want to waste
money on conversation with friends, which I can undertake for free at just
about any time.

Possibly even maybe enjoy the scenery?

While they either freeze or roast in the cabin, and as their hearing is
destroyed by the noise.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

gpsman writes:

Your questions have never been answered to your satisfaction, probably
because you suffer symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome, among other anti-
social ailments.

Sometimes I've received satisfactory answers. But in other cases (such as
this one), there apparently has been no one qualified to provide answers.

Let them supposedly jackoff on the back of your neck.

An odd suggestion, and difficult for a girl to carry out.

Who gives a ****?

It wasn't my suggestion.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Crash Lander writes:

Well, heaven forbid they would use the time to have a conversation with
you!

Indeed. If I'm paying $250 an hour to fly a tin can, I don't want to
waste
money on conversation with friends, which I can undertake for free at just
about any time.

You really don't socialise much do you. You'll find that your conversation
whilst mid flight would be vastly different to a conversation in your
bedroom, or wherever your computer is, particularly if the conversation
participants had never flown before.

Possibly even maybe enjoy the scenery?

While they either freeze or roast in the cabin, and as their hearing is
destroyed by the noise.

Even the tiny ultra light I fly has a cabin heat, and windows that allow air
flow to cool you down if you are hot! The a/c will have headsets for all
occupants. Most are VERY effective at keeping engine noise down. Some are
even able to let you listen to commercial radio or even cd's whilst in
flight. Next negative response? I feel like I'm dealing with my 4 year old!
"Daddy, I don't want to eat my dinner!"
"Why not?"
"I don't like it!"
"But you haven't even tried it!"
"It's yucky!"
"How do you know?"
Here comes the Mxsmanic type response!
"Because!"
"Because why?"
"Just because!"

30 minutes later he's still sitting there, but guess what! He does try it,
and he does eat it! Daddy was right!
Now, Mxsmanic! Eat your dinner!
Oz/Crash Lander

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Let them supposedly jackoff on the back of your neck.

An odd suggestion, and difficult for a girl to carry out.

You just don't know the right girls! ;-)
Oz/Crash Lander

TheSmokingGnu writes:

********, Europe's covered in airports. My money's still with the bog
theory.

I live in Paris, which is hardly a bog. The two major airports are each about
15 miles out. Le Bourget is at a comparable distance, as are aerodromes more
dedicated to GA and training, such as Toussus-le-Noble.

No, I live in LA, where everything is 4 times as expensive as it is in
other parts of the country, and 5 times what it cost to make.

You have a large airport right in the middle of town, as well as a number of
others within reasonable distance. And you have that nice Van Nuys airport
for GA.

Enjoy the scenery?

It would have to be quite a comfortable aircraft.

Have a conversation with you?

Only if they are willing to scream for the duration.

Take the controls for a bit, to give 'em a taste for flight?

It might be dangerous for them to continually climb to and from the front
seats.

Enjoy the destination?

If the destination is the thing, they don't need to fly.

Does too, and those "imaginary" issues will become quite real and
apparent if you happen to have one in the middle of executing pilotary
duties.

Except that this almost never happens; it's a bit like getting struck by
lightning.

Conversely, pilots who have passed the medical often have occult medical
issues that don't become obvious _until_ a problem arises (usually not in
flight, though, since that is statistically unlikely).

I was looking at autopsy summaries for some ATP pilots with recent first-class
medicals, and both of them had serious atherosclerosis that could have killed
them off at any moment; one had more than 90% obstruction of his coronary
arteries. The medical seems to have missed that.

Thus, we have medical screening, which for private licenses and
GA aircraft, is about as menial as one can get (hardly more than a
bog-standard physical).

Unless you have one of the conditions on that arbitrary list. Just being
color blind can exclude you, even though color vision is almost insignificant
for piloting.

So utterly minimal with healthy piloting technique that it's hardly
worth considering.

Oh really? Then how can the danger of death be a key attraction to flying for
real, as so many here have claimed? You can't have it both ways.

In any case, the vast majority of unqualified pilots do their civic duty
and stay well clear of things they're not supposed to be in.

If they are truly one with their aircraft, feeling and empathizing with its
every mood and emotion, they'd be able to fly blindfolded.

You say again, having never felt them or used them.

I've certainly felt them, as I've been in aircraft, just like most people.

Passenger flights in a jet don't count, dear.

Because you say so?

Airline pilots are paid to make the flight as smooth and unperturbed
as possible (as all pilots strive for).

If I don't feel it, neither do they; and if they don't feel it, they can't fly
by it. QED.

You would **** yourself at the real workload to keep a plane doing what
it's supposed to do.

I already know that workload. You watch the waypoints click by on the MFD or
the FMC.

Tell me, then what roll rate is required for a 737-800 to roll wings
level at 250 knots and 10,000 feet on a heading of 030 with a wind from
the south at 10 knots, as the plane turns on standard rate west to east?

I don't know. What roll rate is required?

On a 737-800, like most aircraft in its category, you push buttons and turn
knobs to change altitude and heading. You don't fly with the yoke in your
teeth.

What good, then, does a full-motion simulator serve to an airline pilot
practicing catastrophic failure scenarios?

It allows him to practice procedures without the risk of being injured or
damaging the aircraft.

Surely, he doesn't need to know what the plane will feel like it's doing?

Correct, in many cases. He just needs to memorize certain procedures that he
won't have time to look up for certain serious emergencies. He needs to learn
to stay calm and execute these procedures even when he knows that an emergency
exists. He needs to do all the steps in the right order, without leaving
anything out or adding anything.

In a simulator, he can practice worst-case scenarios until he can perform them
reflexively. When the real situation arises (if it ever does), he can do
everything that is necessary automatically.

He could much more easily reach the correct switches in the correct
time and order if the deck weren't gallaphanting about?

Actually, he's strapped in, so he isn't moving around much, and while many
situations involve significant movements of the aircraft, they are not
necessarily random, jerky movements that might make it difficult to reach the
controls. There are a few situations that might restrict the pilot through
acceleration, but there the key is to avoid letting it go that far in the
first place.

When practicing in-cabin fires, it's much
too bothersome to use simulated smoke; how else could people see those
little guidance lights in the aisles to find the exits?

Actually, cabin simulators do use simulated smoke.

What's the seventh step in the Engine out-In flight checklist?

I don't know. I haven't practiced engine-out scenarios on big iron. On my
Baron, I recall that a failed engine must be feathered and I must apply rudder
and aileron towards the good engine. Once the aircraft is trimmed for the
single engine, I can look further into the problem. But I don't do a lot of
engine-out practice on the Baron, either.

Consistency's a bitch, innit?

I didn't say that it bothered me. It's quite convenient, albeit boring at
times.

If such predication was actually possible, you will have understood the
meaning of my post, digested it's particularly chosen verbiage, and
taken the long walk off a short pier you so desperately deserve.

I do understand the meaning of your post, but it's very different from what
you'd like people to believe it to be. I've been interacting with people like
yourself online for many years.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.