Sad day for Mxsmanic

Mike Ash wrote:
In article
,
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

On Feb 22, 8:28?pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Mike Ash writes:
The bit in the article where he talks about a simmer being asked to land
a passenger plane after the pilots have been debilitated is pretty
funny. Absolutely no mention whatsoever of the difficulty or
improbability of actually pulling off such a feat. It is simply assumed
that it could be done.

It can easily be done.

Large commercial transports are heavily automated, and most flights are
conducted under computer control for most of their durations. ?With the
automation in operation, no particular flying skill is required to keep the
aircraft flying, and since the automation can also land the aircraft, no
particularly flying skill is required for landing, either.

Because of this, any person of reasonable intelligence who can follow
instructions precisely can land an airliner, with help over the radio from a
pilot.

I teach glass cockpit training and I see very intelligent, experienced
pilots have lots of trouble working with the automation. In fact I
have *never* encountered a pilot who thought it was easier to fly with
the automation than to fly on old steam gauges.

To be fair, that's a biased sample, as you're working with people who
already have flying skill, so naturally they'll find flying to be the
easy part. Somebody with a whole lot of experience with electronic
gadgets but little experience with flying may not have that same
experience. I'd expect a computer geek who has never touched real flight
controls to have an easier time following instructions on button-pushing
than control-handling, although he may well have a tough time of both,
and I still have little confidence in the ultimate outcome unless
somebody actually tries it and proves otherwise.

There's also the psychological issue that most people think without
constant "tending" of the airplane by both the pilots and air traffic
control, an airplane will fall out of the sky.

Your average person would likely be paralyzed by fear if told they had
to land the airplane.

Then there is the practical issue of finding someone who can tell a
totally ignorant person how to find the necessary buttons to push
and what to enter entirely from memory for a given random aircraft
type. There is a reason for type training by airlines.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Robert M. Gary writes:

I teach glass cockpit training and I see very intelligent, experienced
pilots have lots of trouble working with the automation. In fact I
have *never* encountered a pilot who thought it was easier to fly with
the automation than to fly on old steam gauges.

But the person in the cockpit in this scenario would not be a pilot.

Steam gauges don't fly the plane. Automation doesn't replace the gauges.

Aah yes - the famous MXS mantra.
It's so easy, any monkey can do it. The only humans who are functionally
incapable of performing these simple tasks are pilots themselves, because their
intelligence is so impaired they cannot even realize they are the least capable
of doing their own job . . .

This posted to a pilot's forum, intermixed with angelic "who-me?" rhetoric.
Anyone detect passive-aggressive intent here?

To quote Frost :
What but Design - design to appall
If design govern in a brain so small. . .

Lamentable.
Find a doctor - it's urgent . . .




In article ,
says...


It's actually easier to land an airliner than it is to land a small aircraft,
because small aircraft usually have only limited automation, just as small
aircraft pilots usually have no clue about how large airliners work, and tend
to assume that everything flies like their Cessnas.

-b- writes:

It's so easy, any monkey can do it. The only humans who are functionally
incapable of performing these simple tasks are pilots themselves, because their
intelligence is so impaired they cannot even realize they are the least capable
of doing their own job . . .

It's unwise to lump all pilots together. There are pilots who are too stupid
to handle the complexity of a large airliner, of course, but they are a
minority. Flying an airliner isn't sufficiently different from flying a small
airplane that someone too stupid to handle the former would be likely to be
competent in the latter.

The saddest part in all of this is that MX is not even a good simmer.
His responses indicate that he has a poor grasp of how simulation is used in
training, and what factors make for good transfer of simulation-learned
techniques to the real flight environment. This is particularly disheartening
because he claims to be a good reader, yet there are volumes published on the
subject.

By for the best thing he could do to improve (or at least initiate) the
pertinence of his posts would be to take some hours of real flight instruction.
Yet he has made his abhorrence of aviation and his disdain for anything real
sufficiently clear, that we can be sure he will never do so.

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.

As for aeronautical considerations - he would do as well to get into long-range
weather forecasting. A year or so ahead. He would have as good a chance of
hitting on something true as his present blather on operations of aircraft.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
-b- writes:

It's so easy, any monkey can do it. The only humans who are functionally
incapable of performing these simple tasks are pilots themselves, because
their
intelligence is so impaired they cannot even realize they are the least
capable
of doing their own job . . .

It's unwise to lump all pilots together. There are pilots who are too
stupid
to handle the complexity of a large airliner, of course, but they are a
minority. Flying an airliner isn't sufficiently different from flying a
small
airplane that someone too stupid to handle the former would be likely to
be
competent in the latter.

Says the moron with "zero" experience with either.

"John Godwin" wrote in message
...
It seems as if Microsoft is pulling the plug on MS Flight Simulator.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7902468.stm

--

I think it's a liability issue.

MSFS is so much like really flying, they have to consider the aging fleet.
Sooner or later we are going to start seeing structural code failures in
versions that have not been properly maintained.

Maxwell wrote:

MSFS is so much like really flying, they have to consider the aging fleet.
Sooner or later we are going to start seeing structural code failures in
versions that have not been properly maintained.

OK... Now that _is_ a funny...

John Godwin writes:

It seems as if Microsoft is pulling the plug on MS Flight Simulator.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7902468.stm

Existing copies of MSFS will continue to run indefinitely. Software doesn't
wear out.

Mxsmanic wrote:
John Godwin writes:

It seems as if Microsoft is pulling the plug on MS Flight Simulator.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7902468.stm

Existing copies of MSFS will continue to run indefinitely. Software doesn't
wear out.

Yep, all the software for DOS and an EGA display, not to mention the
Apple II stuff is still running, assuming you can find hardware that
still runs outside a museum.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.