Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

On Jun 20, 4:30*am, Wingnut wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:11:10 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
All this is just a fancy way of saying that prior experience in a Cessna
150 might not matter in a 767

Who said anything about a Cessna? The original post said she had
experience as a *commercial* pilot. That tends to mean something a bit
bigger than just a personal aircraft.

I believe the lady herself said during a TV interview that her
experience was restricted to light aircraft. The type "Cessna" was
mentioned.

DH

"Wingnut" wrote in message
...
Who said anything about a Cessna? The original post said she had
experience as a *commercial* pilot. That tends to mean something a bit
bigger than just a personal aircraft.

Not so. The training and testing for the Commercial certificate is normally
done in single engine aircraft; often very simple single engine aircraft. To
take a step down from that, I hold a Commercial glider pilot certificate and
have taken hundreds of paying passengers up in sailplanes.

Vaughn

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Wingnut writes:

Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
would have become quite relevant indeed.

Not necessarily. In a situation like that, what would be most important would
be her ability to follow instructions precisely, and the availability of a
qualified pilot to guide her over the radio. These two things would override
any piloting experience she might have.

Nope.

In a situation like that, what would be most important would be her ability
to stay calm, not panic and fly the airplane.

Look around at the average non-pilots in an airliner when a sudden noise
like the gear coming up happens and you will see lots of faces with
momentary fear and it gets worse with even the mildest of turbulence.

The reality is the average non-pilot is afraid of flying to some extent or
other and becomes frightened at just about every bump or sudden change in
the background noise.

My opinion is all the sensory inputs (of which those only "flying" sims
have no clue) along with the the huge responsibility of flying an aircraft
full of other people would likely overwhelm the average non-pilot.

And since all pilots are trained "to follow instructions precisely", that
becomes two reasons that a random pilot has better chances of success than
a random non-pilot.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

In a situation like that, what would be most important would be her ability
to stay calm, not panic and fly the airplane.

She'll need to be able to follow instructions to fly the airplane. Most people
won't panic in a situation like that, although they may be very anxious.

Look around at the average non-pilots in an airliner when a sudden noise
like the gear coming up happens and you will see lots of faces with
momentary fear and it gets worse with even the mildest of turbulence.

When I look around at passengers in an airliner cabin, I usually don't see
anyone who even notices the noise of the gear retracting, and most ignore
turbulence as well unless it spills their drinks.

The reality is the average non-pilot is afraid of flying to some extent or
other and becomes frightened at just about every bump or sudden change in
the background noise.

Only a minority of people have a fear of flying, although it's a substantial
minority (around 14% according to some estimates, if I remember correctly).
The rest are non-pilots without fear.

My opinion is all the sensory inputs (of which those only "flying" sims
have no clue) ...

The sensory inputs are the same for pilots as they are for passengers.

... along with the the huge responsibility of flying an aircraft
full of other people would likely overwhelm the average non-pilot.

You greatly exaggerate the special character of flying. It doesn't scare
people that much (or at all), and they do not instantly panic when things go
wrong.

And since all pilots are trained "to follow instructions precisely", that
becomes two reasons that a random pilot has better chances of success than
a random non-pilot.

Pilots are trained to take responsibility and fly the airplane themselves.
Taking instructions is secondary to that.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

In a situation like that, what would be most important would be her ability
to stay calm, not panic and fly the airplane.

She'll need to be able to follow instructions to fly the airplane. Most people
won't panic in a situation like that, although they may be very anxious.

Delusional.

Most average people would be scared ****less in such a situation and likely
panic at the first bump.

Look around at the average non-pilots in an airliner when a sudden noise
like the gear coming up happens and you will see lots of faces with
momentary fear and it gets worse with even the mildest of turbulence.

When I look around at passengers in an airliner cabin, I usually don't see
anyone who even notices the noise of the gear retracting, and most ignore
turbulence as well unless it spills their drinks.

Delusional.

I've heard people shrieking in terror when a steeper than normal for an
airliner bank was made.

snip

The sensory inputs are the same for pilots as they are for passengers.

True, but irrelevant, as pilots are used to them but non-pilots aren't
and for them it is scary.

snip

Pilots are trained to take responsibility and fly the airplane themselves.
Taking instructions is secondary to that.

Babble.

Have you ever heard of a CFI or ATC?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 20, 12:38*pm, wrote:

My opinion is all the sensory inputs (of which those only "flying" sims
have no clue) along with the the huge responsibility of flying an aircraft
full of other people would likely overwhelm the average non-pilot.

And since all pilots are trained "to follow instructions precisely", that
becomes two reasons that a random pilot has better chances of success than
a random non-pilot.

EXACTLY.

Case in point.

I flew a Cessna for the first time in 8 years. I was told the
avionics was similar to my Garmin 430 so I should not have ANY problem
adopting to the plane.

Sadly that was wrong and had I not had a pilot with me, I would still
be scratching my head trying to tune the frequency. Radio was such to
get odd numbers on the last two digits of the frequency, you had to
PULL the knob out and twist. 117.9, I had to pull the knob out to
dial in the 7. I didn't have to do that.

I cannot imagine the NON pilot even setting the altimeter since you
have to know to look for the kohlsman window to set it (if they find
the thing at all in the myriad of instruments on a jet) Experience
of the FA having pilot background was just one less step. She
probably didn't even have to be told where the PTT was on the yoke AND
that it's not a two way function like a telephone. I wouldn't expect
the non pilot to know this if they had to step up to the plate on an
emergency situation.

Yeah, anybody can read a check list, but when it comes to the rubber
meeting the road, I just don't see a non pilot doing the simple tasks
inside a cockpit of a 767. It's a visual sensory overload for a
passenger when I had the Sundowner, and I know it would be the same
for me trying to find things in a 767.

MX has no clue about sensory overload, the flat screen monitor twain't
the real world since everything can be seen without turning one's
head. Try that in a 767.

writes:

Most average people would be scared ****less in such a situation and likely
panic at the first bump.

Actually, most people behave themselves quite well in emergencies. No panic,
and only moderate fear.

I've heard people shrieking in terror when a steeper than normal for an
airliner bank was made.

I have not.

True, but irrelevant, as pilots are used to them but non-pilots aren't
and for them it is scary.

The sensations in a typical jet transport are exceedingly tame, and do no
scare passengers. This is by design.

writes:

Yeah, anybody can read a check list, but when it comes to the rubber
meeting the road, I just don't see a non pilot doing the simple tasks
inside a cockpit of a 767. It's a visual sensory overload for a
passenger when I had the Sundowner, and I know it would be the same
for me trying to find things in a 767.

Some people are more capable than others.

Mxsmanic wrote:
/snip/To fly an airliner, you need experience and/or training in flying
airliners, not Piper Cubs. /snip/

Sadly, the task is even more limiting: it is necessary to get flight
training in a PARTICULAR aircraft type. It's the systems know-how
that has to be built.

Let's see: would I know to turn on the two hydraulics control breakers,
the FMS1 and the FMS 2 breakers, spin up the APU , turn on the pneumatic
manifold to spin up one main engine, select radio frequencies via the
FMS CDU, initialize the INS - and on and on.....

Brian W
p.s. I cut out the entertainment NGs.

"vaughn" wrote

Not so. The training and testing for the Commercial certificate is
normally done in single engine aircraft; often very simple single engine
aircraft. To take a step down from that, I hold a Commercial glider
pilot certificate and have taken hundreds of paying passengers up in
sailplanes.

Best to ignore this wingnut, as the knowledge of aviation is only slightly
above MX. 'Nuff said.
--
Jim in NC