Boarding with engines running

TheSmokingGnu writes:

There are 14 airports alone in the Paris metropolitan area ...

Yes, but they are all in the suburbs.

... and Orly is like a hop, skip, and a bus ride away.

It's more than an hour away, and I don't think it welcomes general aviation.

Ha, I'm just trying to imagine the (very colorful) language the LAX
controllers would use to tell me that my landing clearance was denied;
they get mad enough when you encroach on their outlying space, much less
trying to use it whilst the 744's fly past.

Why would they deny you landing clearance?

And, Van Nuys isn't all that great for GA training.

It's a lot better than Orly.

So why worry about it?

That's what I ask. The FAA worries excessively about the wrong things.

Besides, medicals aren't excuses to skip regular checkups with your
normal physician, which *DOES* pick up this sort of thing.

No, regular check-ups won't pick it up, either. It's often the sort of thing
you must be looking for.

If you're red/green colorblind, how can you tell which navigation light
is on which wing, and what direction and heading is that aircraft off
the left wing going?

By the way the lights move in relation to each other.

However, most people with red-green color blindness have deuteranomaly or
protanomaly, which means that they can still see red and green, but it is more
difficult for them than it is for normal people (and they see them slightly
differently, although they may still be distinct).

Ok, different situation. You go NORDO because some very key widget in
the radio bus decides to burn out. What light signal did the tower just
give you? Was it "clear to land" or "hold and circle"? What do you mean
you can't tell the difference between the lights?

Just make sure you carry a handheld.

And the list goes on and on. Color is key to flight.

Hardly. There are a handful of situations in which it matters. Usually it
doesn't.

It's the danger of living that attracts people to flying. The knowledge
that at some random moment, they may break down and actually experience
something worth remembering instead of sitting indoors and pounding away
endlessly at the keyboard.

That may be true for _some_ pilots, but certainly not all. There are many
potential attractions to flying, and not everyone is looking for adventure.

The danger of death comes with every activity in our lives, from flying
to breathing.

In which case there's nothing special about flying. You undermine your own
argument.

I can. Can you?

Nobody can.

It's part and parcel of unusual attitude training.

It's not part of flight.

If you don't feel it, it's because you're not sensitive to it; the
airline pilot's thus being so (rather, MORE sensitive) are able to
maintain aircraft positioning without disturbing or alerting the paying
curmudgeons in the back to their maneuvering. QED.

No, they don't feel it either, or I should say, they don't feel it any more
than the passengers do. Everyone is in the same aircraft.

Thus proving the worth (or lack thereof) of simulation as applicable to
real world operation.

You watch the waypoints click by both in simulation and in real life.

I'm sorry, I thought all of flight was formula, and hard fact.

It is, in theory, but that doesn't mean that everyone does the calculations.

I thought, you being such an expert in the operation of the 737-800 (as
you profess), that you could give me precise performance figures given a
complete scenario. I guess YOU AREN'T UP TO THE TASK.

No, I just know that the 737-800 does this for me, thanks to being familiar
with the aircraft. The AFDS turns the aircraft, not I.

And the answer is: it's a trick question. You don't know your current
heading, and so you don't know how far away you are from your intended
course. Even if you did know that, the answer is variable (do you start
the rollout immediately from your current heading? Do you start when 30
degrees abeam? Do you start as you pass it?). The real answer is:
enough. Enough so that the aircraft is operated in a smooth manner, with
a minimum of surface deflection, in an expeditious manner, with as
little error as possible. That is flying, and it's VISCERAL, not calculable.

Clearly, tin-can pilots predominate here. I'm reminded of a rower in crew who
claims that a cruise-ship captain steers the ship by the feel of the oars in
his hands.

That's the way YOU choose to fly the aircraft. The plane is, first and
foremost, flown by hand, by pilots, with training and experience.

No, it is not. Almost all of the average commercial flight is flown by the
FMC. The pilots typically only fly take-off and landing; and in low
visibility, they may use the autoland feature to have the aircraft land itself
as well.

Heaven forbid he should find out the lateral-G load of the unexpected
maneuver prevents him from reaching that critical switch which completes
the sequence, eh?

There are very few emergencies that involve such forces. Large airliners are
only sound to about 2.5 Gs or so. A G force great enough to prevent him from
reaching a switch may well be enough to snap the wings off also, so there's
not much point in worrying about it.

Heaven forbid he should feel the buffet in the controls of the oncoming
stall, which his instrument cluster failed to report to him due to a
blocked static port, eh?

His instruments warn him of critical angle of attack long before he comes
anywhere near it. It is unlikely to ever reach the buffer or even
stick-shaker stage if he is watching his instruments.

Like, say, a high-G turn. QED.

He won't (read: can't) be making any turns of more than 2.5 Gs or so.
Airliners are not fighter planes.

Your left engine falls off (wasn't properly reattached by the
groundcrew). You're now 2000+ lbs. out of list, have heavy yaw from the
operating engine, losing all sorts of other systems (like the hydraulics
that move your ailerons and flaps), generally getting a wicked shimmy,
AND you have no idea what just happened.

Guess it was your fault for letting it go that far, eh?

You can train for that in the sim.

Your failure to spot the satire is very telling.

Your conversion of a mistake to "satire" is noted.

That seems to be a recurring theme with you.

Not really; but if I don't know, I'm not afraid to say so.

I thought you were experienced enough to make edicts on procedure and
operation?

I'm experienced enough to make some statements with a high level of certainty,
but not others.

What happened to your burst of confidence?

Confidence is what allows me to admit when I don't know. People who never say
that they don't know are insecure liars.

Emergency procedures are some of the FIRST things you should learn, and
THE FIRST thing you should have memorized before stepping into the
cockpit.

Normal procedures first; then emergencies.

Engine out is a big one, because you can loose a compressor to
AOA on takeoff, or if you get a bird, or if your fuel system isn't
configured properly (or not functioning properly in the first place).

If you haven't learned to fly an aircraft normally, you won't be able to learn
how to fly it abnormally.

Losing an engine means lots of complicated, sometimes counter-intuitive
(and hand-flown) procedures. And you don't ****ing know.

I know part of it, but I don't practice it much. I don't have to deal with
failures in simulation, and I don't plan to fly for real, so such exercises
are academic, and I undertake them only out of curiosity.

I promised myself that I wouldn't do intellectual battle with an unarmed
opponent, but in your case, you're already running with scissors, naked
through a field of cactus.

If that were true, you wouldn't have to resort to personal attacks. I don't.

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

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

d:-))

Flying is a challenge in simulation, too. I'm surprised by how many people
cannot successfully take off or land in a simulator. This includes some

Then I think your simulator does not really simulate flying of an
airplane properly. I cannot consider a simulator to be worth anything
if a real life pilot cannot fly it without any problems. That is the
test of any simulator and seems like your sim fails it quite badly.

pilots, or at least the ones who have become dependent on physical sensations
(tin-can pilots and the like).

What is a tin-can pilot?

Simulation only works if you take it seriously.

Yes, but what you are talking about is not simulation of flying
because according to you, real life pilots cannot takeoff or land in
your simulator.

things. It's hard to appreciate the beauty of the Rocky Mountains when you
are hurtling towards them uncontrollably.

The simulator does not depict the beauty of the Rocky Mountains in any
way. I have hiked all over the Rockies and its not possible to
replicate that beauty of Romo in a simulator with fake images. When I
get a chance I will fly around the Rockies too but only in a real
airplane.

In my view, if my pulse is racing and I'm sweating, I've failed as a pilot.

Maybe so but that is how we learn to become better real life pilots.
Its an educational process and it never ends which is why its so
highly valued.

Ï "Nomen Nescio" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Mxsmanic

In my case, I consider going to and from the airport to be boring.

Translation: I can't afford a car

.................................................. .................................................. .....

Hope this helps.


Funny!!!!!!!!!

One has to admit, though, that he is one of the most successful trolls in
recent memory.
People just HAVE TO reply to him!!!!!!!!!!! Amazing!!!!!!
George

Hi,

In article ,
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).

We used to board the Islander at NWPC Cark while the pilot was running the
engines up. Bit scary the first few times

Andy

On Feb 24, 4:13 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com wrote



Ok, is there ANYONE here who isn't already familier with Mr. Maniac's
background? Don't be shy - raise your hand.

Anyone?

Nope. I didn't think so.

This poster was a name I didn't recall seeing around, and I thought he was a
newbie that needed to be informed.

A thousand pardons, if that was not the case.
--
Jim in NC

I'm a lurker/occasional poster...

I honestly had not understood what a lot of the problem with MX was
until I read Jay's thread about loosing a friend while flying a few
hours after posting this response to him. (I don't read every thread
on this board) I'm not sure if I would still categorize him as a
Troll in the strictest sense (not that Trollish behavior isn't a very
subjective judgment). I've always considered Trolls to be posters who
intentionally 'stir the pot' to see the emotional reaction without
truly caring about the subject matter. MX on the other hand seems
genuinely interested in flying and aviation, but otherwise fairly
oblivious to how tactless and sophomoric his arguments can sound to
others...

To be completely honest, I suspect that MX is either a child or
autistic adult- clearly intelligent and proud of his knowledge, but
also completely oblivious socially/empathically and a little to eager
to 'show off what he knows'.

I think it would be hard to argue that he hadn't stirred up at least
some reasonably interesting threads on this board... But I can
understand those of you who are sick of it... I'm sorry, I will try
and remember to use the MX: subject tag if/when I respond to him in
the future.

Nomen Nescio wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Mxsmanic

In my case, I consider going to and from the airport to be boring.


Translation: I can't afford a car

Most snipped....

Almost too funny for a Monday morning. Nearly had
a coffee spew.

Wow MX, and you wonder why you infuriate this board so much.

I think the biggest fact that your missing here is that for us 'real
pilots', flying is among the greatest and most visceral passions in
our lives... The piloting community is linked primarily by passion
and emotion for our past-time, not simply policy and procedure.

Why else do you think we dedicate such a high percentage of our lives
resources to one hobby?

Yes.

In my case, I consider going to and from the airport to be boring. I consider
not being close to home at the end of a flight to be hugely inconvenient. I
consider paying $250 an hour for each hour of flight to be very stressful. I
consider having to spend thousands of dollars and trudge through endless
paperwork just to be allowed to fly to be unacceptably onerous. I consider a
requirement that one be in Olympic condition to get a license to be an
unnecessary burden. I consider the inaccessibility of ownership of an
aircraft to be a major disappointment. I consider the possibility of being
killed to be an uncomfortably high risk. I consider the absence of bathrooms
on some aircraft to be a major inconvenience.

And right here you have just proved that you 'don't get it'... People
here do not value your opinion because, quite frankly, why should they
listen to some cocky 'arm-chair pilot' who is telling them how to do
what they eagerly and willingly accept each and every one of the
inconveniences and risks you mention to do because it simply means
that much to them? You have just admitted that you don't have the
passion for flight, stop telling us that we shouldn't either.

These are some of the reasons why I fly in simulation. Simulation preserves
most of the parts I like, while eliminating the parts I don't.

I flew flight simulators from the time I was 8 until I was 23.
Simulators are _sorry_ excuses for reality, that is a simple truth.
ALL they are good for is teaching some of the more mundane aspects of
aviation in a sterile, passionless environment. If those pedantic
details are all that interests you about aviation... well, I'm sorry.
But you absolutely need to understand that there is far more why we
fly than anything that can be portrayed in simulation...

Lots of people engage in simulation of lots of things, for similar reasons.
Many people engage in combat simulations, for example, because real combat has
too many disadvantages.

People take their combat simulations pretty damn far (airsoft,
paintball) because combat simulations suffer the same lack of
'experience' that flight simulations do.

Flying is a challenge in simulation, too. I'm surprised by how many people
cannot successfully take off or land in a simulator. This includes some
pilots, or at least the ones who have become dependent on physical sensations
(tin-can pilots and the like).

Its not about the challenge, its about simply 'being up there' with
all of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities entitled therein.

Simulation only works if you take it seriously.

I'll even go so far as to say that people who consistently treat simulation as
mere gaming may also treat real flight the same way, because this has its
basis in their personality. The same type of personality that blows off
checklists in simulation because "it's not real life, anyway," may also do the
same thing in real life, with some similar dismissal as rationalization.

That is a tremendously arrogant assumption for someone who has already
shown that he has absolutely no concept as to what motivates private
pilots.

Reality might also be the least desirable part of the experience.

How would you know?

How can you not see how tremendously infuriating it is to those of us
who willingly and happily spend a third of our lives resources flying
for the passion and meaning it brings our lives to have some 'kid'
with no comprehension of why we do it constantly second guessing and
trying to one-up us?

If you would keep your postings to simple questions and
clarifications, that would be one thing, but then to completely
discount the entire reason that we do it in the first place? And you
wonder why this board is so rude to you.

I find a racing pulse to be a distraction. There is much about flying to
appreciate, and having one's thoughts clouded by adrenalin ruins many of those
things. It's hard to appreciate the beauty of the Rocky Mountains when you
are hurtling towards them uncontrollably.

No, it costs more in real life than in a simulator simply because it is real
life, and the expensive parts cannot be deleted.

I'm surprised so many people mention the danger of flying as an attraction.
They must be high in testosterone. Personally, I think that if you feel
yourself at risk or in danger while flying, you're doing something wrong.


So you are a thrillseeker. Quite a few GA pilots seem to be thrillseekers.
But we know what the safety experts say about them, don't we?

In my view, if my pulse is racing and I'm sweating, I've failed as a pilot.

You mistake the simple passion of experience for some form of
irrational thrillseeking. Pilot's don't fly because its dangerous,
pilots fly because they can FLY... There really is no other way to
describe it...

Actually:

Consider this MX- To us, it feels like you are an intentionally deaf
(earplugged) person arguing with us about the sound of a symphony.
Sure, you can understand an learn all of the instruments, their
ranges, the music theory behind them, and you might even be able to
compose a few interesting pieces. You can get a lot 'in simulation',
and much of it is even admirable knowledge.

That said, you continue to argue with those of us who enjoy listening
to music about the value of ACTUALLY EXPERIENCING the music. If you
simply wanted to learn music theory that is one thing, but instead,
you actually cast judgment about the value of experiencing the very
act for which you have a passion for the mundane theory. Of course
we're going to think you're an arrogant prick- until you take the
earplugs out of your ears and go have a listen to the experience of
aviation, you've completely lost the forest for the trees.

I hope airline pilots don't feel this way.

I never picked up professional photography out of fear for loosing my
passion for it. Similarly, I would never fly professionally out of a
similar fear.

It is the passion that drives us, it is the experience that drives
us. There is nothing more beautiful than experiencing our world from
the heavens, everything else is just details.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Yes, but they are all in the suburbs.

Oh, call the whaamublance, would ya.

Why would they deny you landing clearance?

Because LAX is one of the busiest airports in the world, which handles
thousands of flights a day, and the controllers may be juggling a
half-dozen aircraft each, which all has to move in a smooth procession.
Sure, a 172 pilot can ASK for clearance, but he's more than very likely
to receive a "thanks, but no thanks".

That's what I ask. The FAA worries excessively about the wrong things.

The point, dear boy, is that YOU worry about it too much.

No, regular check-ups won't pick it up, either. It's often the sort of thing
you must be looking for.

I can't speak for French doctoring, but here this sort of thing is par
for the course.

By the way the lights move in relation to each other.

Which requires that you not only stare at the lights for any given
period of time, it also deducts critical time you may need to:

Adjust the controls
Fiddle a knob
Check your instruments
Move the #*(&@ out of the way of the jumbo jet on a collision course
with your plane.

Sorry, you need to be able to look and KNOW, immediately. Only color
does that.

it is more
difficult for them than it is for normal people (and they see them slightly
differently, although they may still be distinct).

In which case they can apply for a SODA. If they pass, huzzah.

Just make sure you carry a handheld.

Your handheld is burnt out, and all your batteries are dead. And there's
no power port in the plane. And the Mets are playing that evening.

You are well and truly NORDO. What signal did the tower just give you?

Hardly. There are a handful of situations in which it matters. Usually it
doesn't.

Like:

Reading a chart
Reading weather
Checking airspeed
Checking fuel for water and correct grade

Nope, still need it.

There are many
potential attractions to flying, and not everyone is looking for adventure.

Yes, they all are. You don't fly because it's a horrid trudge uphill in
sleet, you do it because you want to experience something you wouldn't
get staying on the ground (not, again, that you would know).

In which case there's nothing special about flying. You undermine your own
argument.

That was never my argument to begin with, fool.

Nobody can.

I can.

It's not part of flight.

That wasn't a condition of it's possibility. Your mistake, again.

No, they don't feel it either, or I should say, they don't feel it any more
than the passengers do. Everyone is in the same aircraft.

Do you not read?

Their sensitivity to it is greater than yours. True, the forces are the
same throughout the aircraft, but their perception is far better than
you or I.

No, I just know that the 737-800 does this for me, thanks to being familiar
with the aircraft. The AFDS turns the aircraft, not I.

Then you haven't learned to fly the aircraft. You've learned to twiddle
a knob, and any ground-pounder can do that.

Take the controls sometime.

Clearly, tin-can pilots predominate here.

Clearly, supercilious bull**** predominates here with you. Don't be so
crass to think a pilot does not know how to fly his aircraft, because
you can twiddle a knob (remember our "murder mystery" argument).

No, it is not.

How would you know?

The pilots typically only fly take-off and landing; and in low
visibility, they may use the autoland feature to have the aircraft land itself
as well.

Pilots typically fly all the way through the initial parts of the
departure, procedure turns and such. It's a bitch to find out George has
gone kaddywompus in IFR traffic.

Large airliners are
only sound to about 2.5 Gs or so.

Care to state a source?

A G force great enough to prevent him from
reaching a switch may well be enough to snap the wings off also

At 2.5G, your 20lbs. head weighs 50lbs. Your 40lbs. arm weighs 100lbs.
And if you were actually flying at max G load (around 4G's for a
passenger aircraft), your arm could weigh 160lbs. Still think you have
the arm strength to hit that switch?

Heaven forbid he should feel the buffet in the controls of the oncoming
stall, which his instrument cluster failed to report to him due to a
blocked static port, eh?

His instruments warn him of critical angle of attack long before he comes
anywhere near it. It is unlikely to ever reach the buffer or even
stick-shaker stage if he is watching his instruments.

Did you not actually read that? Your instruments aren't telling you
anything. They think everything is fine. The plane is approaching a
stall and they can't detect it, and you (Mr. I Don't Need to Feel
Anything), take it all the way through to a full-root stall, because
you're super-confident that your instruments will never ever lie to you.

Congratulations, your worthless pronouncements have killed all aboard.

He won't (read: can't) be making any turns of more than 2.5 Gs or so.
Airliners are not fighter planes.

Read the (two) above.

You can train for that in the sim.

That's not the point.

Your conversion of a mistake to "satire" is noted.

Wasn't a mistake in the least. You need to read it again.

I'm experienced enough to make some statements with a high level of certainty,
but not others.

So your statement "Try me" was just fallacious bluff, then? You are
ready to admit that flying a virtual 737 in no way permits nor prepares
you for the task of taking a real bird to the air?

Normal procedures first; then emergencies.

Emergency procedures are listed first in the POH for a reason.

You may begin to learn some normal procedures first, but once again you
fail to properly read my statement. Emergency procedures are the first
you memorize (which you have clearly failed to do, in the confidence
that your perfect computing environment will never offer up any undue
failure lest you request it).

If you haven't learned to fly an aircraft normally, you won't be able to learn
how to fly it abnormally.

And by all appearances, you haven't learned to fly, period.

I know part of it, but I don't practice it much. I don't have to deal with
failures in simulation, and I don't plan to fly for real, so such exercises
are academic, and I undertake them only out of curiosity.

So again you freely admit that simulation does not prepare you for the
rigors and necessity of flying a real aircraft, and that it's inherent
safety makes you a complacent pilot with sloppy habits?

I think we've made a breakthrough here.

If that were true, you wouldn't have to resort to personal attacks.

What personal attacks? So far as I know, everything I've said is true.

Please take half a second to actually read the post. Most of this crap
is you failing to register what exactly it is you're reading.

Please don't try to run with scissors, naked, through a field of cactus,
backwards.

TheSmokingGnu

Nice analysis, but he just ignores stuff that he doesn't like.

Yes, it's great to be welcoming, receptive, open minded, and polite, as some
people have pointed out, but he will never respond in kind. He's also hard
to ignore, since his volume of posts tends to overwhelm the NG.

The fact is that he only looks at things from his own close minded, self
centered, and narrow perspective. He pretends to want to learn, but his
attitudes preclude any meaningful interchange of ideas.

He does not work, and can not seem to hold a job, yet he blames this on the
economy and a variety of other external factors.

He is actually a pretty pathetic character- kind of a lost dog that you feel
sorry for, but when you reach out a helping hand, the dog bites you.

Unfortunately, the lost dog continues to hang around and won't go away, and
worse he ruins the NG with his ****.

I just wish he'd get a real (not simulated) life and find some other
interests so he wouldn't spend all of his waking hours polluting RAP.