Sad day for Mxsmanic

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

It would be highly unlikely that there would be an experienced instructor
pilot within 50 miles of an ATC facility nor do ATC facilities keep
a list of phone numbers of experienced instructor pilots, much less a list
sorted by various airliner types.

Rest assured, they can find lots of people very quickly. You greatly
underestimate the capabilities and sophistication of the parties involved in
such circumstances.

Delusional babble.

Smaller aircraft aren't airliners; you are in a hole and trying to get
out by changing the subject.

There's nothing to get out of. As I've said, instructors are easy to find.

More delusional babble.

You've spent way too much time watching movies and playing games.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Which is why such simulators are built from real airplane parts with
real switches and consoles and cost millions.

Yes.

Good, you agree what you posted is nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Quite a few amounts to a very small number scattered about the globe
and ATC has no phone list of such simulators, much less a list sorted
by aircraft type, and the numbers of people qualified to run such a
simulator.

I'm reminded of a cartoon in which someone picks up a phone, dials a number,
and hears "U.S. Government, may I help you?"

ATC doesn't need phone lists of simulators or airline pilots or anything of
the kind.

Even I can find an instructor pilot in a few minutes with a few calls. Air
traffic control facilities can do the same thing, only much faster and much
more easily.

So ATC facilities have magic telephones?

Give it a try and see if you can find someone qualified to run a simulator
for a Boeing 757.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Mike Ash writes:

All of this has to happen before the poor *******s up in the air run out
of fuel and die.

Incapacitation of the pilots does not drain fuel from the tanks.

The *engines turning* drains the fuel from the tanks. In other words
there is a strict time limit on all of these activities.

Can even this much be done, much less the actual
talking-through-the-landing part? I'm doubtful myself. If anyone with
airline logistics experience would like to weigh in, I'd love to hear
about the practicality of simply finding the people and equipment from
someone who knows.

It seems to be pretty easy to find S&R, fire equipment, and military
interception on short notice; why would it be hard to find an instructor?

Your stupidity never ceases to amaze. All of the people you list in the
first clause are in positions that are staffed and on-call and prepared
to respond. Instructors are not emergency responders.

It seems to be pretty easy to get an ambulance on short notice, why
would it be hard to find a painter?

Airports don't keep instructors sitting around on call ready to leap
into action at a moment's notice the way they do S&R, firemen, and
military interceptors.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Varactor writes:

Ohhh sure that's a reliable evaluation. What did they say: "perfect
simulation of the G1000"

No.

Mike Ash writes:

The *engines turning* drains the fuel from the tanks. In other words
there is a strict time limit on all of these activities.

That time limit is not changed by incapacitation of the pilots.

Airports don't keep instructors sitting around on call ready to leap
into action at a moment's notice the way they do S&R, firemen, and
military interceptors.

They don't have to be on call.

writes:

So ATC facilities have magic telephones?

No, but they have people with useful qualifications who can think fast when
problems arise.

Give it a try and see if you can find someone qualified to run a simulator
for a Boeing 757.

I'm two telephone calls away from such a person. I'm sure ATC centers are
much closer.

writes:

Good, you agree what you posted is nonsense.

No, I agree that the simulators under discussion are built largely with real
parts and cost millions of dollars, although I didn't think that was in
dispute to begin with.

-b- writes:

Therefore we can rest assured that his posts will be devoid of any significance
other than thinly disguised arrogance and disdain for those who have taken the
initiative to learn something. This is an extremely retrograde position, and
indicative of a very disturbed personality.

So a simmer is unqualified to discuss flying, but a pilot is qualified to
diagnose psychological disorders? Explain the seeming contradiction here.

As for aeronautical considerations - he would do as well to get into long-range
weather forecasting.

There are a lot of people predicting the weather 100 years from now who are no
more qualified to do so than I am.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

So ATC facilities have magic telephones?

No, but they have people with useful qualifications who can think fast when
problems arise.

Babble.

Give it a try and see if you can find someone qualified to run a simulator
for a Boeing 757.

I'm two telephone calls away from such a person. I'm sure ATC centers are
much closer.

Yeah, sure.

A real Boeing 757 simulator, not a PC toy.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.