If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Primary training in a Hi Perf complex acft
Mxsmanic wrote: Eventually, I expect that airline flights will be fully automated. The lead flight attendant or purser will press a "start flight" button where the cockpit used to be when it's time to push back from the gate, and the rest will be controlled automatically. No need for pilots at all. Good Lord you're amazingly stupid ! Graham |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Primary training in a Hi Perf complex acft
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message ... "John Mazor" wrote in message news:A4hNh.2386$xE.1804@trnddc08... "Mxsmanic" wrote in message By your benighted standards, brain surgery is just a matter of drilling and cutting. A butcher, or for that matter, a carpenter, armed with a few anatomy diagrams ought to be able to do it, right? He equates it like this: http://www.dmartstores.com/opboargambym.html Bwhawhawhawha! Anyone want to take bets on whether it's on his bookshelf? |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Primary training in a Hi Perf complex acft
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
... John Mazor writes: You didn't have that geographic qualifier when you made your sweeping statement. It's true that a few countries are using ab initio training to breed their own pilots, but that's a tiny minority. Minority or not, it proves that it can be done. And it's possible for crew to fly for 16 hours straight with no relief crew or stops, without an accident. Just because it can be done doesn't mean that it's desirable, let alone optimal. Starting and finishing in a jet airliner is a pretty good proof of concept for primary training in a high-performance aircraft. So the abiity to make an incision and sew it up is pretty good "proof of concept" that a freshly minted medical intern can do brain surgery? Another weasel-worded qualifier. "Most of the time" is not good enough. It's good enough for an entire career, Bull****. You deleted the following sentence in my statement: "One sufficiently bad pilot screw up = one smoking hole." That's the whole point. and it's a lot cheaper to cover only the normal case than it is to train for the exceptions as well. Not when you factor in the costs of accidents caused by inadequate training. Note that "costs" include a lot more than just the liability suits. "Our wings do not fall off most of the time" would not be good enough, either. Then no aircraft is good enough, because there is no aircraft for which it can be said that the wings _never_ fall off. Hey, asswipe, where did I say that wings could never fall off? Not only did I not say that, there's nothing in my statement that even implies that, so don't put words in my mouth. If you're going to argue rationally, please do follow the rules of logic. Every airline pilot with whom I've discussed automation makes it a point to occasionally do a little hand-flying just to maintain those skills. Good for them. But not every airline pilot does this. Such as who? What's the basis for you making such an assertion (outside of the minority of pilots who are trained to think that the airplane is always smarter than they are)? More significantly, there are many emergency situations that are not routinely practiced by many airline pilots. Well, duh, you can't do them all in a sim or training flight. Training typically involves a mix of the most common emergencies - engine cuts, etc. - and a few "special" scenarios, such as new procedures or techniques. But every year we get any number of emergency scenarios that transcend normal training routines. That's what separates the pros from the amateurs - the ability to draw on other experience and extrapolate to whatever doo-doo has just hit your fan. And since airliners are so reliable and normal air travel is so routine, pilots can get away with this and have productive and rewarding careers, anyway. You obviously have not the slightest concept of what goes on in the cockpits of airliners every day. Yes, the vast majority of flights are routine or encounter only minor, easily fixed problems. Be it 99% or 99.9%, it's that last "9" that "proves the concept" that on any given day, somewhere in the entire air transport system, some crew saves their behinds and those of their passengers by exercising experience and skills that rise above the lower level of what is normally required. And that's what makes flying on on an airline the safest possible way to get from A to B in the U.S. You have to draw a line somewhere. It's possible for a 747 to enter a spin, I suppose, but spins are not normally practiced by airline pilots, and there isn't any good way to simulate them. So most airline pilots have no experience with spins in the aircraft they fly. But is that really a problem? How often do 737s or 747s enter spins, anyway? Not nearly as often as the real-life situations that are what I was referring to in my previous paragraph. The Sioux City accident, where Capt. Al Haynes dealt with a system failure for which there was no training and marshalled his resources, is a classic example of the difference between a button-pusher and a real pilot. And your vast pool of ignorance probably is enhanced by no knowledge of events that don't make big news splashes. For example: http://www.alpa.org/alpa/DesktopModu...DocumentID=154 http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/A...458& Tabid=73 http://cf.alpa.org/internet/news/2000news/nr00066e.htm http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/A...618& Tabid=73 **** happens like this all the time. Trained-monkey button pushers, let alone automated systems, cannot be expected to routinely rise to such levels of airmanship. With increasing automation comes a decreasing need for qualification. That's just a fact of life. And it seems to be an irreversible evolution of commercial aviation. Only when nothing really bad happens, see previous cites. Eventually, I expect that airline flights will be fully automated. The lead flight attendant or purser will press a "start flight" button where the cockpit used to be when it's time to push back from the gate, and the rest will be controlled automatically. No need for pilots at all. There is probably nothing that airlines wish for more, except perhaps free fuel. I learned a long time ago never to say never, but by the time that the technology matures enough to provide sufficiently reliable automation to do that at a level that the public will accept, it also will have given us the means to conduct most interpersonal transactions virtually, thus eliminating most of the situations that require us to physically transport ourselves from A to B. So air transport already will be on the wane, except possibly for cargo. I'll leave it to the futurists to predict when we reach that tipping point, but it won't happen in our lifetimes. Which makes it irrelevant for discussions of current conditions and realities, such as your moronic opinion that minimally trained and experienced button-pushers can replace real pilots. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Primary training in a Hi Perf complex acft
"Eeyore" wrote in
message ... John Mazor wrote: One sufficiently bad pilot screw up = one smoking hole. Talking of which, what's your current observation of the fallout from AA587 ? The flying pilot overcontrolled the rudder, leading to aerodynamic forces that caused the structural failure. This was a revelation to most airline pilots, who thought - with good reason - that as long as you were at or below maneuvering speed, you could make any control inputs you want without breaking your airplane. It turns out that the FAA certification standards only addressed one rudder input, not multiple inputs as occured in AA587. The engineering crowd was aware of this limitation, but nobody bothered to communicate it to the people who actually fly the damn things. Plus, there was the problem that at that speed, a rudder pedal depression of only an inch or two would cause maximum deflection. Not much margin for error there. The issue of laminates wasn't resolved one way or the other, except to say that there was no compelling reason to forbid their use. Of course, that doesn't stop ambulance-chasing lawyers from looking for some deep pockets into which to thrust their bony fingers with their claims, but what else is new? The conspirowacko crowd's goofy theories will continue to exist as long as there is a paying market for their products. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Primary training in a Hi Perf complex acft
"Eeyore" wrote in
message ... Mxsmanic wrote: Eeyore writes: I suspect he means they might be tempted into 'overcontrolling' but lacks the vocabulary or brains to say so. What I mean is that they simply have no experience flying such an aircraft, and experience with a tin can will not help to any significant extent. LMAO ! Have you ever flown ? As in PIC that is ? The general opinion seems to be that he has an ATP in Flight Simulator. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Primary training in a Hi Perf complex acft
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Mxsmanic wrote: Eventually, I expect that airline flights will be fully automated. The lead flight attendant or purser will press a "start flight" button where the cockpit used to be when it's time to push back from the gate, and the rest will be controlled automatically. No need for pilots at all. Good Lord you're amazingly stupid ! Give the boy credit, he works so hard at it. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Primary training in a Hi Perf complex acft
Nomen Nescio writes:
The more important question is...... Why do YOU maintain that it's not difficult? Because I know the procedures, and they are not difficult to follow. You press buttons and turn knobs. Guess what? Any pilot, from student to ATP, knows that if you're "at 100 feet over a mile from the threshold", you got a problem. We don't need to "crash into a tree" to "see if there really was a problem". You do in a simulator, because the problem may not be with the aircraft. I wanted to isolate the problem. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Primary training in a Hi Perf complex acft
Eeyore writes:
Have you ever flown ? As in PIC that is ? In simulation, yes, both large and small aircraft. And you? -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Primary training in a Hi Perf complex acft
Eeyore writes:
Uh ? Ab-initio training involves getting a PPL first anyway. Why can't you get that flying only large airliners from the beginning? Also, requirements vary from one jurisdiction to another. And technically, you can easily learn to pilot airliners from simulator experience exclusively, without ever stepping into a real aircraft. Do you think they put beginners in heavy twins to begin with ? I think that in some places they put complete novices in simulators and train them to be airline pilots in a year or less. It's entirely possible. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Primary training in a Hi Perf complex acft
Eeyore writes:
Good Lord you're amazingly stupid ! Remember that USENET is archived. Someday, when airliners really are piloted automatically, you can look back on what you've said above and try to laugh. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Primary nav source | Wizard of Draws | Instrument Flight Rules | 17 | December 21st 05 07:11 AM |
Insurance out of hand? - AOPA flying clubs high perf retractable | Ron | Piloting | 4 | February 18th 05 08:40 AM |
Insurance requirements out of hand? - AOPA high perf retractable for Flying Clubs | ron | Piloting | 6 | February 16th 05 03:33 AM |
Need to rent an a/c for primary training | Briand200 | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | May 28th 04 04:40 PM |
WTB metal mid perf. | DGRTEK | Soaring | 2 | January 26th 04 03:27 PM |