[HN Gopher] Passenger with "no idea how to fly" lands plane afte...
___________________________________________________________________
Passenger with "no idea how to fly" lands plane after pilot
incapacitated
Author : prostoalex
Score : 542 points
Date : 2022-05-11 15:50 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cbsnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cbsnews.com)
| WalterBright wrote:
| My dad (Air Force) said that sometimes a mechanic would decide he
| knew how to fly, and would take off in a military plane (this was
| long ago). They'd fly around a bit, and then realize they have no
| idea how to land.
|
| They'd get on the radio, and the tower would talk them down. Meet
| the mechanic on the runway, and escort him off to prison.
| zokier wrote:
| Variation of this story? https://fighterjetsworld.com/weekly-
| article/holdens-lightnin...
| WalterBright wrote:
| That story was about an accident. My dad's story was about a
| deliberate act, and it put the mechanic in prison.
| teeray wrote:
| I hope the passenger at least got a logbook with an entry for his
| surprise discovery flight
| robofanatic wrote:
| We need self landing planes
| theiasson wrote:
| Reminds of this episode of QI:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzRhDyyOlcM
| BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 wrote:
| Looking at the ATC transcript, the passenger couldn't figure out
| the transponder, change frequencies or give out his cell phone
| number. At least he was able to get the microphone working.
|
| Likely he eventually picked up the phone number ATC gave him and
| they took it from there.
|
| The video shows ATC got him to a really long runway, a good
| portion of which he overflew. No flare on the landing, but the
| Caravan is a tough bird, the descent rate was gentle and the
| attitude was just right.
|
| An excellent landing is where you can use the airplane again
| (without repairs).
| digitallyfree wrote:
| From the transcript it looked like the passenger had a lot of
| trouble giving out his phone number as well as getting the
| phone number from ATC. I wonder if it would make more sense for
| him to dial 911 on his cell phone instead given the emergency
| situation and have dispatch deal with routing him to the
| necessary help.
| theonething wrote:
| > the attitude was just right
|
| attitude or altitude? I imagine both would be correct. :)
| wolf550e wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_control
| recursive wrote:
| I suspect altitude, attitude (aviation), and attitude
| (mental) were all three correct. :)
| [deleted]
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| Bucket list material, if you ask me, but no one ever does and I
| can't figure out why!!
| belter wrote:
| For when the call comes...
|
| "How YOU can land a passenger aircraft! 12 steps"
|
| https://youtu.be/ePDl1JNqjpM
| causi wrote:
| Sort of begs the question, why don't commercial airliners have
| remote-fly capabilities? Hook it through a hardware interlock and
| keep one pilot on call somewhere in the country at all times.
| [deleted]
| hindsightbias wrote:
| The FAA and industry are researching this as an option for
| future a/c due to pilot shortages.
|
| A ground-based pilot would assist multiple a/c pilots on
| various tasks and planning and would be able to take over in an
| emergency.
| bangalore wrote:
| Surely you can't be serious.
| vhodges wrote:
| Wow... They should make a movie about that.
|
| For you youngins out there... this is a joke, there were several
| Airport 7X movies (including an episode of The Incredible Hulk
| (Bill Bixby series) where Banner/The Hulk had to land a plane) in
| the 70's.
| robertoandred wrote:
| I just want to tell you both good luck, we're all counting on
| you.
| vhodges wrote:
| I surely appreciate that
| agloeregrets wrote:
| That is actually an interesting concept for the Hulk. In a
| small plane, if he were to go green he would immediately cause
| a crash so Banner would have to calmly listen to instructions
| while fighting the stress.
| vhodges wrote:
| On the episode it was a passenger airliner but yeah :). iirc
| he hulked out at the last minute to apply more pressure to
| the brake peddle.
| coldpie wrote:
| > For you youngins out there... in the 70's.
|
| People born in 1980 are turning 42 this year :)
| erex78 wrote:
| ATC audio of the event: https://archive.liveatc.net/ht/kpbi-
| kfpr.mp3
| asdfman123 wrote:
| I bet this was a guy raised on video games. I was about to make a
| joke about it but I'm actually serious.
|
| Once I, a former Houstonian with no experience driving on ice,
| was driving through the snowy mountains and lost control of my
| car. Instead of panicking, my video-game-induced laser focus
| kicked in and I calmly piloted the car until the wheels gained
| traction and I could park the car on the side of the road.
|
| But learning how to focus in the midst of chaos, instead of
| panicking, is a technique I specifically had to learn in
| childhood to beat challenging levels of Super Mario Brothers.
|
| Thanks, video games.
| justinator wrote:
| _> I bet this was a guy raised on video games. I was about to
| make a joke about it but I 'm actually serious._
|
| That was a major plot point in the movie, Snakes on a Plane.
| [deleted]
| daveslash wrote:
| _" We've got a story, now, about a mid air scare that _none_ of
| us would _ever_ want to face"_
|
| My joke was going to be _" Half the lurkers on r/flightsim
| enter the chat..."_. I lurk on that sub, and I feel like half
| the people fantasize of being able to "save the day!" when
| something goes wrong on the plane. Not fanticizing that
| something goes wrong... but _if it did_... the flight would be
| fortunate enough to have them there to save the day.
|
| Though, thinking of having the tower talk someone down always
| reminds me of _It 's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World_" ~ "What could
| _possible_ happen to an Old Fashioned? "
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWoCLqMq8qM
|
| [Edit] Formatting.
| xhroot wrote:
| There was a guy who made a forum bet he could land a Cessna 172
| - first try - with nothing but MS Flight Simulator experience.
|
| Here:
|
| https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/34/other-other-topics/pro...
|
| And outcome:
|
| https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=35915547&p...
| asdfman123 wrote:
| There's nothing magic about flying. At the end of the day
| it's relatively simple.
|
| The difficult part is being absolutely certain you're trained
| well enough to not crash the thing.
| robscallsign wrote:
| ... and trained enough to handle any possible combination
| of inflight emergency, equipment failure, change of
| weather, safetly handle any last minute directive or change
| by ATC, etc.
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| Quite a few years ago, a buddy of mine got an incentive ride in
| the back seat of an F-18 while he was in the Navy. The pilot
| handed over the controls to him and started to walk him through
| some aerobatic maneuver when my friend just executed whatever
| it was (I don't remember the specifics).
|
| The pilot was astounded that a novice flyer would perform the
| maneuver so well and asked if my pal had any simulator time.
| His response: "I played F/A-18 Hornet on my Mac a lot."
| DavidSJ wrote:
| I played that game a lot.
|
| What was the maneuver?
| stouset wrote:
| My wild guess is a barrel roll or aileron roll. Both are
| pretty easy to walk a novice through, and not something
| where you'd be particularly worried about the consequences
| of them getting it seriously wrong.
| proc0 wrote:
| Yeah, games are so misunderstood. It's not just for kids, and
| it's not just entertainment, it just happens to be that way
| because of the stigma. They are interactive experiences with
| software and that could be virtually anything. The learning and
| training potential is huge if companies started making proper
| games again (where the experience is priority) and not fancy
| theme park pay2win casinos for children.
| Hammershaft wrote:
| Games are just rich interactive models of some synthetic,
| emulated, or simulated system. They can be perfect for
| building intuition about complex systems that are difficult
| to represent linearly as in text or video. Games could be a
| very promising future for education & training but they still
| carry an old stigma with them & the f2p ad driven game
| wasteland of the app store only helps reinforce that stigma.
|
| https://xkcd.com/1356/
| AtNightWeCode wrote:
| This was probably easier than to refuel and successfully land
| in Top Gun on NES.
| marcodiego wrote:
| I like Top Gun on NES. It is better than SEGA's G-Loc and as
| fun as Afterburner.
| loup-vaillant wrote:
| I wonder how this would generalise. Especially on VR.
|
| I have a VR headset, and have played through Half-Life Alyx and
| a bit of zombie mode in Pavlov VR. My first headcrab in Half-
| life Alyx was _horrible_. I panicked, forgot which button to
| press to release the magazine, fumbled the insertion, forgot to
| load the gun after having inserted the magazine... but by the
| end of the game, those head crab didn't trigger any fear, only
| a reflex of pulling out the gun, pointing, shooting, and
| reloading quickly became a reflex. Oh, and I became much better
| at quick aiming. I'm no speed shooter, but I do land a couple
| shots per second.
|
| Then I tried Pavlov VR. First the shooting range to get used to
| the slightly different mechanics. And then the zombie mode.
| This time the zombies were _fast_. And what do you know, I
| panicked _again_. Though I didn't fumble with the reload this
| time (I had no spare magazine), and my aiming was okay, I
| _massively_ overshot.
|
| That's when I thought that people who unload their entire
| charger really aren't necessarily vengeance driven bloodthirsty
| warmongers. They may just lack training. Anyway, I trained a
| couple times more with the zombies, and it got better.
|
| Here's the thing though: I now have trained VR games to shoot
| at moving humanoid targets, some of which shoot back, some of
| which just try to close in to melee range. So now I wonder: if
| all goes to shit and I'm handed a loaded gun, and suddenly 3
| angry people with knives close in on me with visible killing
| intent, what are the chances that my VR training may cause me
| to shoot them in the heart by reflex, instead of panicking,
| running, or negotiating?
|
| How far pure video game training can go?
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| As someone who grew up in an area that gets a lot of winter
| driving conditions and has a bunch of car handling training
| (dry, rain, and winter specific): you didn't "calmly pilot"
| anything, friend.
|
| You hit ice, you're a passenger until you're no longer on ice.
| The car is mostly a 2D projectile unless you're on studded
| tires. You were lucky, that's it.
|
| And, I might add: _you lost control of the car._ There 's a
| whole chain of failures that led up to that point: not being
| aware of forecast weather, not being aware of changing
| conditions, and so on. Folks experienced in driving in winter
| weather know how to watch the road for signs of icing, how to
| test for traction that's getting worse, how to be smooth with
| controls, and how to recognize that a control input is starting
| to cause the car to lose traction. You fully lost control.
|
| It is a common joke among instructors teaching car handling
| skills that the worst students are the ones who have played
| driving video games. They're overconfident. They don't actually
| know much at all about car handling techniques. They have no
| motor skills that good, fast driving requires. No "butt sense"
| - reading how the car feels, sounds, and acts as it approaches
| or exceeds the limits of traction.
|
| "I safely handled losing control of my car in icy weather
| because I played Super Mario Brothers decades ago" is almost
| but not quite the best example of Dunning-Kruger effect I've
| seen in an HN comment in quite some time.
| asdfman123 wrote:
| Ah yes, the time honored internet tradition of intentionally
| misreading someone else's comment to assert your superiority
| scarby2 wrote:
| completely agree here. As someone who has done a fair amount
| of snow and ice driving in some quite unpleasant conditions
| never once have quick reflexes helped: low speed, correct use
| of controls (copious use of engine braking, starting in
| higher gear etc.) and the ability to make small measured
| corrections have seen me all right.
|
| Even then I've come close to crashing three times (would have
| been a small crash though) twice due to slopes that weren't
| safe to descend given the conditions and once because a
| family of deer crossed the road in front of me, i was not
| able to correct course to avoid them or use the brakes -
| doing either would have led to me losing control - luckily i
| was doing < 15 mph and the deer stepped out of the way at the
| last second.
| rhdunn wrote:
| If they made a film of this or a similar style story, it would
| be interesting to do it in a slumdog millionaire style where
| the character picks up some things playing video games, some
| from a case where the nato phonetic alphabet is used, some from
| watching aircraft investigation shows, etc.
| qwopqwopqw0p wrote:
| lamontcg wrote:
| > Thanks, video games.
|
| Based on how common it has become for people to tailgate and
| then twitchily bail out of their lane at the last second before
| they rear end the person in front of them, I'm very 50-50 on
| how well video games prepare our reflexes for the real world.
| digitallyfree wrote:
| I spent some time on a Cessna 172 Flightgear sim to get an idea
| for the plane and its controls (to get some background for some
| fiction that I'm writing). With the virtual cockpit it's
| possible to learn where all the controls and indicators are and
| what they do, as well as get an understand of the basics of
| takeoff, landing, and level flight. Radionavigation and the
| autopilot system were also interesting items that I didn't know
| much about until I tried it out in sim.
|
| Obviously this isn't a replacement for real training and
| experience. But someone with sim experience who knows how to
| read the instruments and control the yoke, rudder, and throttle
| would likely have a much better chance surviving than one who
| would freak out just trying to comprehend the instrument panel.
| They would probably be under much less stress as well during
| the event.
| corrral wrote:
| Can confirm. I once, with perfect calm and focus, steered into
| a bad slide on long slightly-downhill curve covered in ice. I'd
| never, ever done that in real life before then, in 15+ years of
| driving. I didn't think about it, didn't even worry for a
| millisecond. I'd 100% for-sure have hit a parked car if not for
| all the semi-realistic-but-still-arcadey racing games I've
| played.
| bluedays wrote:
| I'm pretty video games saved my life while driving, too. Once I
| was driving down the highway at 70 miles per hour and the car
| in front of me stopped on a dime. I always maintain a good
| distance from the car in front of me but I knew for sure if I
| would have just hit the breaks I would have hit him. I wound up
| swerving into the next lane with a reaction time of under a
| second only to drive by a six car pile up which included the
| car that had been in front of me. It is one of the scariest
| incidents I have ever had in my life while driving.
| mhb wrote:
| I'm not so sure you know what a good distance is from the car
| in front of you.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| In a multi-car pileup, the car immediately in front of you
| literally stops in an instant, much faster than if it were
| to fully hit the brakes. It's much faster than any driver
| could realistically expect. It can happen so fast, you may
| not even see brake lights turn on. It's why these pileups
| can get so surprisingly large.
| cecilpl2 wrote:
| That is why you should always leave enough space in front
| of you so that you can react and safely come to a stop if
| the car in front were to suddenly hit a pileup.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| The braking distance at 70mph is a huge 75m, which is
| about 9 London buses. Add your reaction time, and do you
| aee why distances of over 100m between cars are slightly
| unrealistic?
| cecilpl2 wrote:
| No, at 70mph (31m/s) you travel 100 metres in 3.2
| seconds. I was always taught 3 seconds on the highway is
| a safe following distance, and 4 seconds in adverse
| weather conditions like rain.
|
| It's not at all unrealistic - it's safe.
| runnerup wrote:
| Where do you live/drive?
| cecilpl2 wrote:
| BC: https://www.icbc.com/road-safety/crashes-
| happen/speed/Pages/...
|
| > Allow at least two seconds' following distance behind
| other vehicles in good weather and road conditions (three
| seconds on a highway).
|
| > Slow down for poor weather conditions or uneven roads
| and increase your following distance to at least four
| seconds. Remember that the distance required to stop
| increases in wet or slippery conditions.
| mbreese wrote:
| In the event of a pileup, it doesn't really matter how
| much distance you've left. If you end up hitting the car
| in front of you, you get cited for failure to maintain
| distance. Because, if you had left enough distance, you
| wouldn't have hit the car in front of you. It doesn't
| matter if you left 50, 75, or 100m. If you hit the car in
| front, you didn't leave enough space. And the risk of
| someone else swerving into that gap doesn't mean you're
| not at fault, it just means you're both wrong now.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > And the risk of someone else swerving into that gap
| doesn't mean you're not at fault, it just means you're
| both wrong now.
|
| Sounds a lot like 'climate change is your fault', because
| there is nothong I can personally do, you are just
| shifting the blame
| InitialLastName wrote:
| > In the event of a pileup, it doesn't really matter how
| much distance you've left.
|
| For legal liability, that might be true. In reality, if
| you've left yourself a safe amount of distance, you have
| more opportunity to react to events in front of you in
| such a way that you minimize damage and loss of life
| (thus mattering).
| mbreese wrote:
| If you've left enough room, you're not part of the pile
| up. Kind of by definition, which is the point...
| outworlder wrote:
| Right. Other people will see the gap and will insert
| themselves in it. What then?
|
| I try to keep a healthy distance, but I've never been
| able to reserve enough distance to account the car in
| front of me hitting a brick wall.
| cecilpl2 wrote:
| Then I just maintain the gap to account for them. I have
| never been unable to do this. It does mean sometimes I
| drive 1-2 kph slower than the average speed.
| lutorm wrote:
| Indeed. This is why _you can 't drive around just looking
| at the back of the car in front of you_, you need to look
| _way down_ the road. The distance to the car in front of
| you needs to be large enough that you can react if that
| driver steps on the brake, but will never be enough
| should they impact a stationary object. You need to see
| stuff like that much earlier, and if you can 't, you're
| driving too fast.
|
| I'm constantly baffled that these pileups happen, since
| it's obvious these people were driving much, much faster
| than is justifiable under the conditions. They should all
| lose their licenses.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| They're so rare that most drivers can't even imagine it
| happening to them. Combined with the fact that most
| drivers don't even understand what it is they should look
| for.
| lutorm wrote:
| Really? The need to look far down the road is literally
| the first thing that comes up if you google "where should
| I look when driving":
|
| * In order to avoid last minute moves and spot possible
| traffic hazards, you should always look down the road
| ahead of your vehicle.
|
| * Your attention should be focused on the road ahead,
| following your intended path of travel. It would be best
| if you allowed a visual lead-time of at least 20-30
| seconds.
|
| * Scanning the road ahead while you're driving is one of
| the best safety tips you can employ when you're behind
| the wheel! Generally speaking, you should look ahead 15
| to 20 seconds or an eighth of a mile when driving in the
| city and 20 to 30 seconds or about a quarter of a mile on
| the highway.
|
| etc, etc.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| Just to quantify this, the shortest 60-0 stopping
| distance for a "consumer-grade" car (meaning not a
| formula one vehicle) is the Porsche 911, which can do it
| in 27m. This is nearly 6 vehicle lengths. Usual safety
| guidelines are to stay about 3 car lengths behind whoever
| you're following, so even world's greatest brakes are not
| gonna save you if the vehicle in front stops in 0m
| because it hits an immovable pile of already stopped
| objects itself.
| frob wrote:
| 3 car lengths seems way too close to be following at
| highways speeds. Assuming a car is about 16 ft long, that
| gives you less than half a second of reaction time at 70
| mph. Even at 25 mph, it's still less than 1.5 seconds.
|
| I very much prefer to be 3 SECONDS behind the person in
| front of me. It's a nice metric that works at basically
| all speeds above 30.
| mmh0000 wrote:
| According to the Utah government's Drivers Handbook[0]
| (printed page 27, or PDF page 36), they recommend a 2
| second distance on clear dry roads:
|
| following distance Watch when the rear of the vehi- cle
| ahead passes a sign, pole, or any other fixed point.
| Count the seconds it takes you to reach the same point
| (one-thousand-one, one-thousand-two.) You are following
| too close if you pass that point before counting two
| seconds. Slow down and check your new following interval.
| Repeat until you are following no closer than two
| seconds. Always increase your following distance on slick
| roads, when following large vehicles, motorcycles, or
| vehicles pulling a trailer, at night, in fog, in bad
| weather and when following vehicles that stop at railroad
| crossings (transit buses, school buses or vehicles
| carrying dangerous mate- rial.)
|
| [0] https://dld.utah.gov/wp-
| content/uploads/sites/17/2022/01/Dri...
| cecilpl2 wrote:
| > Usual safety guidelines are to stay about 3 car lengths
| behind whoever you're following
|
| No, safety guidelines are to follow 3 _SECONDS_ behind
| the car in front, which is about 100m at 70mph.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| Please point me to the safety guidelines that say to keep
| 3 car lengths behind on the highway!
|
| The most common guideline I've heard is the two-second
| (or sometimes, three-second) rule; that's roughly 54m at
| 60mph, assuming two seconds.
| stouset wrote:
| > Usual safety guidelines are to stay about 3 car lengths
| behind whoever you're following
|
| Uh, no. Usual safety guidelines are to stay a speed-
| dependent distance behind whomever you're following. The
| one I've heard most often quoted is one car length per
| ten miles per hour, so at 70mph you should be a minimum
| of seven car lengths behind.
|
| Three lengths is comically short for those kinds of
| speeds.
| MerelyMortal wrote:
| You talked about reaction time, but not situational
| awareness. Thankfully there was not a car next to you that
| you would have otherwise swerved into.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Yeah. Parent commenter didn't notice the six car pileup
| until after they'd passed it.
| bluedays wrote:
| There was a truck that was a part of it. I'll bring my
| drone next time I'm driving.
| bluedays wrote:
| To be honest I didn't know if a car was on my right, but a
| front end collision is the most dangerous car crash you can
| get into. I still think it was a safe choice.
| dhosek wrote:
| I had a similar experience which was pure luck. I was
| driving home from a night class and going 80 or 90 down the
| freeway. I realized I was about to rear end a car and I
| shifted into the right lane only to see another car there
| and I shifted back into the lane that I came from narrowly
| missing the original car and the one in the right lane. I
| probably should have died that night.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> I bet this was a guy raised on video games.
|
| I feel kinda stupid. I played a lot of video games growing up,
| including a binge on MS Flightsim 4 (I think). When I took
| flying lessons as an adult, the hardest thing for me was
| mastering landing. Something about it just wouldn't click for
| many hours. OTOH I never really mastered landing in the sim
| either - I didn't really care about that back then and didn't
| have any instruction at all.
|
| OTOH I helped out for years at Young Eagles events and some
| kids fly for the first time quite naturally, and when asked
| they tend to say "Yeah, I leaned on the computer".
| throwawayboise wrote:
| > the hardest thing for me was mastering landing. Something
| about it just wouldn't click for many hours ... some kids fly
| for the first time quite naturally
|
| There's probably a big component of natural ability here.
| Some people are just better at certain things. If you're not
| one of them, you may be able to train yourself to a competent
| level of performance, but you'll never be as good as a
| "natural." It's somthing that takes a bit of self-awareness
| and humility to admit, and some people never do.
| testplzignore wrote:
| As someone who beat Pilotwings on the SNES, I think I could fly
| a plane. But I would probably crash on the landing and make Big
| Al very sad :(
| sandworm101 wrote:
| "Moore is suspected of being responsible for approximately 100
| thefts in Washington, Idaho, and Canada, including bicycles,
| automobiles, _light aircraft_ , and speedboats.[15] It is
| believed that _he learned how to fly small planes by reading
| aircraft manuals, handbooks, watching a "How to fly a small
| airplane" DVD, and playing flight simulator computer
| games_.[17] One plane he stole was a Cessna 182, FAA
| registration number N24658, belonging to then KZOK-FM radio
| personality Bob Rivers, valued at over $150,000.[20] The plane
| was later recovered from a Yakama Indian Reservation crash
| site. Though badly damaged, it was rebuilt and is in Florida."
|
| "He became known as the "Barefoot Bandit" by reportedly
| committing some of his crimes barefoot, once leaving behind 39
| chalk footprints and the word "c'ya!". Despite the widely
| reported nickname, officials said that he more often wore
| shoes."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colton_Harris_Moore
|
| https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/the-airpla...
| WalterBright wrote:
| Taking off isn't hard, an airplane will take off on its own.
| It'll fly straight and level if you simply let go of the
| controls. It's the landing that's hard, and Moore would crash
| every time he landed.
| [deleted]
| hellisothers wrote:
| If it is trimmed correctly, and knowing where the trim
| control is or what it does is not obvious :)
| WalterBright wrote:
| It has to have gas in the tank, too :-)
|
| And don't get me wrong, there are plenty of ways to kill
| yourself even in a simple airplane.
| hoten wrote:
| There's an episode in the first season of "Into the Night"
| that suggests the complete opposite. Oops!
| WalterBright wrote:
| For simpler airplanes, point it down the runway and open
| the throttle. It'll take off.
| asdfman123 wrote:
| I've been nerding out over airplanes recently, and I want to
| get my private pilot's license.
|
| One thing that has surprised me is that airplanes are
| actually pretty simple machines. They're not hard to fly,
| either.
|
| The part that is expensive (besides fuel) and time consuming
| is all the emphasis on safety. You want to be REALLY sure
| your plane is working and REALLY sure you know how to fly it.
|
| If you just want to hop in a plane and don't care much about
| survival... you could probably figure it out. Just like a 14
| year old could probably figure out how to drive a car or
| crash it immediately.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Flying a plane is easy for the most part. It's the radio
| and all the rest of the stuff that's basically impossible
| to get a hang of.
| tadfisher wrote:
| However, he crashed every plane he flew.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| He also wasn't landing at an airport with help from ATC. If
| you put an aircraft down on an unprepared beach/field, and
| walk away, that was a good landing irrespective of any
| damage done.
|
| For many pilots, a "crash" must be unintentional.
| Deliberately putting an aircraft down somewhere other than
| a runway is "ditching" or a forced landing, but never a
| crash.
| shkkmo wrote:
| > If you put an aircraft down on an unprepared
| beach/field, and walk away, that was a good landing
| irrespective of any damage done.
|
| For his skill level, walking away is a great result.
| However, there are Alaskan bush pilots who land some
| pretty remarkable places. Some of them are not official
| runways and many of the ones that are official (Alaska
| has a LOT) won't have ATC support. OFC, Alaskan bush
| pilots aren't representative of pilots overall, but they
| still show we should be careful about overgeneralizing.
|
| When my father and his friend tipped their plane forward
| and bent their prop landing on a gravel bar moose
| hunting, it wasn't a "good" landing, but neither was it
| "ditching" or a "forced landing" (they were able to
| unload the plane and trim the prop enough to fly the
| plane out so it wasn't that bad of a landing either).
| From past discussion on here, it is a little complicated
| if it was legally considered a "crash".
| cbm-vic-20 wrote:
| Those planes have reinforced landing gear that is much
| more suitable for landing in those places, as opposed to
| planes that usually land on paved surfaces.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| As the adage goes, "any aircraft landing you can walk away
| from is a good landing" and "any landing where you can
| still use the aircraft is a great landing."
| Aeolun wrote:
| Current air traffic consists of a lot of extremely
| unremarkable great landings then :)
| foldr wrote:
| https://youtu.be/6cDohyRbzeo?t=159
| Swizec wrote:
| I believe Formula E and various other racing series have had
| huge success with hiring drivers out of e-sports. If you're
| fast in a sim, you only have to add the physical prowess and
| stamina to race. That's much cheaper than spending a decade in
| minor racing series.
|
| Sauce after quick googling:
| https://www.popsci.com/story/technology/video-gamers-new-rac...
| InitialLastName wrote:
| You must be thinking of a series other than Formula E (or at
| least, it's not what I'd call "huge success"). All of their
| current drivers had pretty normal feeder series careers
| (often including brief, unsuccessful stints in F1) and I
| don't see any that have notable sim accomplishments.
|
| WEC has made some amount of noise about hiring sim drivers
| (including a tie-up at some point with Nissan and Gran
| Turismo), but the same applies for the drivers in their top
| two classes.
|
| Even your source doesn't care to mention any drivers who have
| gone from sim racing success to what anyone paying attention
| to motorsport would call "huge success" in top-level racing
| (two of the GT Academy drivers did have a successful one-off
| drive in LMP2, with a factory team and a much better-
| established teammate).
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Video game experience is absolutely better than no experience.
|
| On small general aviation planes, the feature set is quite
| minimal and most simulators will replicate all of it faithfully
| enough, so the only remaining thing is the "feel" of the plane
| which you can hopefully experience a bit during flight before
| landing.
|
| In contrast, a big passenger jet has insane amounts of
| different systems that need to be configured - not only are
| those typically not fully replicated in consumer-grade
| simulators (you probably don't want to spend 30 minutes
| configuring your plane for takeoff before being able to start a
| game) but even a complete simulator such as the one used for
| pilot training won't be enough to actually learn all those
| systems - that's why it takes years of training.
|
| Simulator-only experience for a big plane? No chance. For a
| small plane? Yeah if there's no damage or other edge-cases and
| the weather is on your side you have good chances of making it
| especially if you have an instructor on the radio to double-
| check everything.
| anthk wrote:
| Flightgear did that with the airbus.
| 93po wrote:
| Decently sized plane was stolen, did many loops, and flew
| around just fine for more than an hour:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Horizon_Air_Q400_incident
|
| All by a guy with zero flight experience but also credited
| playing video games
| mediaman wrote:
| Sometimes the ground service people are allowed to move the
| planes on the ground for repositioning, when no passengers
| on on board. It's not uncommon for them to at least know
| how to turn the systems on and move it. And if you know
| that, takeoff isn't incredibly more difficult. Landing, on
| the other hand, is more difficult, but that didn't seem to
| be among his objectives.
| swasheck wrote:
| fun fact: i was on a flight to seoul out of seatac that
| left only minutes before that. what a crazy experience to
| land in incheon to a flurry of texts asking about our
| safety and arrival.
| meowface wrote:
| Bit of a caveat on that one, though:
|
| >About 1 hour and 15 minutes after takeoff, Russell died by
| intentionally crashing the aircraft on lightly populated
| Ketron Island in Puget Sound.
|
| I suppose it may not count if it was an intentional crash,
| but who knows if he would've landed it safely if he didn't
| want to crash it.
|
| Pretty interesting that he managed to pull off maneuvers
| like that without having any experience flying:
|
| >Near the end of the flight, the aircraft was seen
| performing a barrel roll over Puget Sound, recovering a
| mere ten feet (three meters) over the water. A veteran
| pilot said the maneuver "seemed pretty well executed,
| without either stalling or pulling the wings off."
|
| >[Horizon Air CEO Gary Beck] said the aerial maneuvers were
| "incredible" and that he "did not know how [Russell]
| achieved the experience that he did." During his
| conversation with air traffic control, Russell said he
| "[knew] what [he was] doing a little bit" because he had
| experience playing video games.
| DocTomoe wrote:
| While I do not condone the actions of this guy - I have
| little doubt he could have landed the plane, given the
| proficiency he has shown. Unfortunately, after landing,
| life in prison awaited him. In a way, he was tasting the
| freedom of flight, for the first time, and for the last
| time. It has a certain poetic touch to it.
| gfosco wrote:
| Bit of a tribute video (there are many about "skyking")
| with some video clips and atc audio.
| https://tv.gab.com/channel/fosco/view/fly-high-
| skyking-61130...
| 93po wrote:
| Man that website is full of awful, awful content
|
| edit: lmao you're the CTO. cool site bro
| gfosco wrote:
| Different perspectives... I don't see anything awful
| there.
| textide wrote:
| PMDG just released their 737-700 plane for the new Microsoft
| Flight Simulator. It has incredible fidelity, including a
| nearly fully functional FMC. Some real world 737 pilots have
| released reviews on YouTube in the last couple of days.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| A long time ago when I downloaded a simulator I naively
| assumed it would faithfully simulate the inner workings of
| the plane (and even run the actual software that the real
| flight computers ran) - if I pull this circuit breaker,
| what happens? If I flip it 10 times quickly, does it mess
| up the network and break everything? I was rather
| disappointed that it just blanked the screens and they came
| back up instantly as soon as the power bus was re-powered.
|
| Another way to say: don't let me into any airplane's
| cockpit - not just because I'll crash it, but because I'll
| manage to break it _on the ground_ before it even has a
| chance of flying.
| tialaramex wrote:
| The biggest problem is communication. The best thing you can
| have, more than some idea how an aeroplane works even, is
| knowing how to talk to the ground. If you're talking to the
| ground, you get both practical benefits (people on the ground
| know how to fly that plane, and know what you need to do to
| get it back down safely) and a morale boost.
|
| Chances are if you're taking over in an emergency, the radios
| are already tuned to a frequency with other humans on it, and
| you just need to know how to talk (there's a push-to-talk
| arrangement) and how to listen to what they say back. If you
| need to tune the radio that's already bad news, but if you
| happen to be reading this thread you want 121.5 MHz aka
| "Guard" and once people realise you're serious you should get
| help quickly.
|
| The big plane can in principle perform the entire landing and
| roll out at a suitable runway, it's called a CAT IIIc
| landing. No hand flying is required, much less knowing the
| full "from dark & quiet" procedures. But arranging for that
| to happen is going to need communication with the ground.
| Most scheduled flights don't actually perform an automated
| landing of any sort since that would leave pilots rusty, and
| so your intended destination probably isn't capable or isn't
| set up to do it - but if a non-pilot is now flying a big
| plane that's not "most scheduled flights" that's an
| emergency, and so the fact that the only CAT III runway is
| currently being used for take-offs, or is closed to repair
| the markings, or is at a different airport on the far side of
| the city, does not matter. They will do what it takes to get
| you down safely.
|
| The reason we don't use CAT IIIc landings ordinarily is that
| _unless there was an emergency_ they don 't solve a problem
| we really have. The CAT IIIc landing puts the aeroplane
| safely on the ground (good) but leaves it on the runway,
| where it's a hazard to everybody else. Under IIIc conditions
| a human can't see a hand waved in front of their face - which
| is why the landing was automated - so taxiing is impossible.
| If you're a non-pilot who just saved 200 people's lives
| that's not a problem, you're down safe now. If you're a
| commercial pilot with six more commuter jets stuck behind you
| on a Monday morning it's terrible so we just close the
| airport to all traffic in those conditions.
| AdamJacobMuller wrote:
| > once people realise you're serious
|
| I know people joke around on guard, but, I have to imagine
| joking about that topic is rather taboo.
| WalterBright wrote:
| transmission on the emergency radio: "I'm sinking, I'm
| sinking!"
|
| responder: "What are you thinking about?"
| superjan wrote:
| Ah, the german coast guard!
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR0lWICH3rY
| lutorm wrote:
| https://youtu.be/yR0lWICH3rY
| cecilpl2 wrote:
| When I did my private license 20 years ago, my instructor
| asked me whether I had previous experience playing flight
| simulators. She said that people who had usually required
| more time in the cockpit to unlearn all the bad habits they
| had acquired from games.
|
| Maybe things have changed since the days of Microsoft Flight
| Simulator 2000.
| outworlder wrote:
| They haven't - unless you are playing in VR, then at least
| one can be averted.
|
| One of the bad habits is looking at instruments all the
| time, while you should be looking out the windows. VR on
| the other hand encourages you to look out (because it's
| fun, and it feels like you are really looking out). Head
| tracking is a very distant cousin, but may help a little.
|
| The rest, I don't think you can avoid. No force feedback,
| no chair pressure (even if you have pedals you may not know
| you are uncoordinated), you can't feel the aircraft, and so
| on.
|
| But bad habits are just that. In a life and death situation
| like this pilot incapacitation story, I'd rather have some
| bad habits but understand what's happening and what should
| be done, versus not even knowing which button to push to
| talk to ATC, and how to keep the plane flying.
| the_af wrote:
| I wonder about DCS "study sims" of combat jets.
|
| No, no, I'm not saying one could actually be a fighter pilot
| just by flying DCS F-18. But I wonder about the realism. It
| seems every single knob and button and thingy on the cockpit
| is clickable. Every subsystem is simulated. The manual is
| reportedly huge (I don't own it, just watched videos on
| YouTube). With such a realistic flightsim, TrackIR, a HOTAS
| setup, and all the gadgets, how far is it from the real
| thing?
|
| I wonder how far you can go on an actual F-18 with just DCS
| experience. I suppose a huge detail that is missing is the
| pressurized suit and the enormous G forces.
|
| (I also wonder how come most of this isn't classified, and is
| instead generally available to the paying public. I suppose
| the answer is "because as a private individual, you cannot
| buy an F-18 with weapons").
| Juicyy wrote:
| Ive been in the sim world for a while and i guarantee the
| good DCS pilots could make the move to real life flying
| with no problems. Combat, fitness, and the organization of
| the military would be the difficult part.
| robscallsign wrote:
| I've been a fairly serious flight simmer for about 20 years
| now, including 13 years of DCS, and have flown the DCS F-18
| since it's initial release 4 years ago. This topic gets
| discussed a fair bit within the flight sim community, and
| we mostly conclude that we'd likely get the F-18 into the
| air, but would most likely kill ourselves: either passing
| out from lack of tolerance and training to handle the G
| forces, lack of familiarity with the sensation of flight
| which can wreak havoc on your inner ear and result in
| vertigo, dizzyness, nausea, or paying attention to any of
| the hundreds of small details and checks that real pilots
| do that you don't do in DCS (is the OBOGS working properly?
| cabin pressurization working properly, icing, etc).
| Simulator pilots would also not likely be able to handle
| any inflight emergency or problem in the air. Then,
| assuming we didn't already kill ourselves during the
| flight, we'd at best damage the aircraft during the
| landing, or kill ourselves and destroy the aircraft at
| worst.
|
| Still, DCS offers a tremendous value as a low cost training
| platform. The DCS A-10C module was built for the US Air
| National Guard to use as a training simulator platform to
| train A-10C pilots, and other countries and airforces are
| increasingly using DCS to train their pilots. A Spanish
| company built the Aviojet C-101 module for DCS because it
| is used in the Spanish airforce and they wanted to use DCS
| as a training platform. A Chinese company built the JF-17
| module for DCS. An Italian company is currently building an
| MB-339 module for DCS.
|
| You can search online and find images of Chinese fighter
| pilots using DCS for training. There are a ton of things
| you can train to in DCS very cost effectively - practicing
| communications, tactical formations, administrative tasks
| and procedures, weapon switchology, etc. It doesn't
| completely replace real flight training of course, but it
| sure can help countries and militiaries with limited
| budgets stretch their training budgets.
|
| > I also wonder how come most of this isn't classified
|
| All of the "good stuff" is very, very classified.
| Particularly electronic warfare, radar performance, modern
| beyond visible range tactics, modern weapons performance
| porifiles, nuclear weapons delivery profiles.
|
| A lot of the "nuts and bolts stuff" and basic training
| materials is unclassified and readily available. If you
| read through and study all of these documents you'll be
| well on your way to being a fairly competent virtual
| fighter pilot: https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/pubs-pat-
| pubs.asp
|
| Most of the topics discussed there are fairly "traditional"
| fighter pilot stuff that have been discussed by airforces
| for over a hundred years now, so aren't really secret, even
| though they're being flown in a modern jet trainer like the
| T-45.
| meheleventyone wrote:
| The biggest issue is that the physical simulation is still
| pretty rough in modern games particularly when considering
| stalls and other "out of true" flight dynamics dealing with
| turbulent flows. Which is quite important for landing and
| take-off. Likewise whilst flight models are aiming for
| accuracy they're still full of fudges, guesses for missing
| data and mistakes so I'd take any correspondence to real
| aircraft with a massive grain of salt.
|
| You will probably be able to turn all the systems on in an
| aircraft of the right vintage though.
| lutorm wrote:
| That, plus the lack of full sensual inputs (G-forces,
| turbulence, vestibular experiences, the full outside
| view) makes it quite a bit of a lesser experience than
| the real thing.
|
| There's a reason you don't need much equipment for a
| _procedural_ flight simulator, as opposed to one that can
| replicate actual flight.
| Sakos wrote:
| I could turn on a real F-16. Zero chance I'd try to fly one
| irl. I just don't think the knowledge/skill transfer is
| very good for actual flying without any sort of (realistic)
| haptic feedback for how the plane actually feels to fly.
| Maybe if you shat money and could afford a 6DoF rig and
| trained on that?
| Nextgrid wrote:
| I think a big part is also to be able to operate under
| pressure and not panic. It's one thing to operate a complex
| machine from the comfort of your office chair, it's another
| thing to operate the same machine when any small mistake
| could mean death.
| bentcorner wrote:
| I've played a bit of the new MSFS and flying the big jet
| (737?) is a completely different beast than flying the
| Cessna. There's so much automation that if you don't know
| what you're doing you can't even descend to land the plane
| (because it thinks you want to cruise and will fight you all
| the way down).
| DocTomoe wrote:
| On the other hand, if you know what you're doing - and that
| is surprisingly little to know, it is a lot easier to land
| a 737 in MSFS2020 than a Cessna. ILS almost feels like
| cheating.
|
| (But then, I'm a self-designated FlightSim enthusiast with
| several thousand hours of documented simulated flight time
| over the last 20 years, so ...)
| irrational wrote:
| Apparently there were 2 passengers. I wonder if one of the
| passengers video chatted with the air traffic controller so they
| could see what the person in the pilot's seat was doing?
| edf13 wrote:
| That auto-play video is annoying!
| aqme28 wrote:
| They're commenting on parts of the source video that we can't
| even see! What is the point of that?
| [deleted]
| joadha wrote:
| To obscure the facts of the story that when gathered make it
| less impactful / impressive.
|
| It's clear that the "no idea how to fly" guy actually had
| plenty idea, when you listen to the full audio.
| wolf550e wrote:
| Some more discussion of the incident on /r/aviation
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/umzwrh/passenger_...
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Listening to the audio of the conversation, it doesn't seem like
| the passenger has no flying experience...
|
| At minimum they must have spent significant time around aviation
| or be ex-military.
|
| e: From another comment on Reddit
|
| > Examples: > The passenger knew what button to press on the yoke
| to transmit to ATC. > The passenger knew aviation phraseology and
| phonetics "333 Lima Delta". > The passenger knew where the
| altimeter was and his altitude "I'm maintaining 9100 feet" >
| Passenger was able to identify the transponder and enter a squawk
| code. > Passenger knew what the vertical speed indicator was "I'm
| descending right now at 550 feet a minute passing 8640 feet". >
| My wife, who flies with me regularly, might get one or two of
| those items, but probably couldn't point out the transponder,
| much less enter a squawk code without instructions.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| backtoyoujim wrote:
| The passenger was given the "first lesson is free" discount.
| kmstout wrote:
| "When did you learn how to fly?"
|
| "I didn't, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night."
| AiFoGhost wrote:
| Absolutely incredible. What a nightmare. But also, haven't we all
| daydreamed of handling a moment like this gracefully?
| orbital-decay wrote:
| _> air traffic controllers were able to locate the plane on radar
| and walk the passenger through how to land the small plane_
|
| Are ATCOs actually trained for this kind of situation?
| zokier wrote:
| I think more typically (if there is such thing for these
| scenarios) atc tries get hold of some instructor or even a
| pilot it no instructor is found instead of instructing
| themselves.
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| Yes, in most cases, but also modern aircraft over the last 50
| years has become very safe. The plane practically flies itself.
| civil_engineer wrote:
| A Cessna Caravan airplane does not land itself. It's a
| thoroughly manual process. As a pilot, I'm in awe of the
| controller and passenger for being able to pull this off.
| joadha wrote:
| > The plane practically flies itself.
|
| Personally, I would perhaps allow this turn of phrase in
| reference to take-off and cruising, depending on equipment
| and assuming VFR, but I'm not sure I would ever say this
| about LANDING any plane.
|
| Source: I'm an occasional student-pilot.
| [deleted]
| zokier wrote:
| I don't know if I'd call Cessna 208 particularly modern, it
| is 40 year old model
| jolux wrote:
| Yeah but I thought takeoff and landing were the two parts
| that still required mostly manual control?
| haunter wrote:
| Autoland has been a (mostly emergency) feature for years
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland It might have been
| installed on the plane
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-ruFmgTpqA
|
| https://www.easa.europa.eu/community/topics/emergency-
| autola...
| outworlder wrote:
| Autoland in a Caravan?!
| sandworm101 wrote:
| If the weather conditions are favorable, there isn't much
| needed. This would have been a very stable aircraft on its
| own. If the controls are setup properly in advance of the
| runway, it will descend and "land" with little input. In
| all likelihood they used a long approach, strait-in, to an
| airfield totally cleared of all other traffic. He would
| have had a strait shot in from many miles away.
|
| The important decision was to keep him following the
| coastline. A random aircraft over florida land would be a
| nightmare to locate and deal with on radar, even if the
| transponder was functional. Keeping him following the
| coastline would have made the fix much simpler.
| Sharlin wrote:
| Not necessarily, but pilots usually fly those manually
| because a) they're the exciting parts b) a certain number
| of manual takeoffs/landings per year are required to stay
| certified. (EDIT: This was about airliners, a Cessna is
| definitely 100% manual!)
| HWR_14 wrote:
| As far as I understand, takeoff and landing requires manual
| control in the same way, or for the same reason, Tesla
| autopilot requires hands on the wheel. It's mostly
| liability and trust issues.
| jzawodn wrote:
| Not really. The controller who helped was a flight instructor.
|
| If there's one around (sometimes there is), they're usually the
| best option.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| I've listened to a few recordings of similar situations
| online and if there's no flight instructor there, and the
| plane has enough fuel to keep circling for a while, they
| often call one up to come to the airport and help while
| keeping the amateur in a safe pattern until they arrive.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| One of the better snl's
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGRcJQ9tMbY
| mauvehaus wrote:
| As long as we're celebrating the Scottish accent:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqAu-DDlINs
|
| Never gets old :-)
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Oh imagine, the delights of the Banter, frozen in
| celluloid!
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T5K1HxEBCU
| jmkni wrote:
| Stupid question, but could this guy end up in some sort of legal
| trouble?
|
| He's obviously a hero and saved the lives of everyone on board,
| but it's still illegal to fly a plane while unqualified, right?
| progre wrote:
| In some situations illegal things become legal. Like how it's
| illegal to stand on the street and stop the traffic. Except it
| becomes legal if you are preventing drivers from driving their
| cars of a collapsed bridge.
| ledauphin wrote:
| it's not a criminal offense, and the FAA has no authority
| except to revoke a pilot certificate, which the "pilot" does
| not have.
|
| Basically, the FAA really can't do much, and nobody else has
| authority to punish the person who landed since they didn't
| cause any personal or property damage.
| chernevik wrote:
| IANAL but: - Wouldn't be surprised if general legal doctrine
| allows neglect of law in emergency - Clearly no intent to
| violate the law/regulations - Good luck getting a jury to
| convict - What's the penalty, loss of pilot's license the guy
| doesn't have?
| nkozyra wrote:
| > He's obviously a hero and saved the lives of everyone on
| board, but it's still illegal to fly a plane while unqualified,
| right?
|
| What, uh, is the alternative?
| schmookeeg wrote:
| While I think even the colossally tone-deaf FAA wouldn't try to
| prosecute this guy under these circumstances, there's an odd
| gray area here, where a certificated pilot can deviate from any
| regulation to meet the need of an emergency [1] -- so I think a
| twist of logic would allow a non-pilot to be allowed to deviate
| from the "must have a pilot certificate" rules to meet his
| emergency the same way while acting as pilot-in-command of this
| plane.
|
| Not a lawyer, am a flight instructor, I think 91.3 is how this
| non-pilot gets to use pilot regs to get out of pilot jail :)
|
| [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.3
| moduspol wrote:
| One might argue that if he's specifically following the
| direct instructions of the ATC, who is a licensed pilot in
| this case, that the ATC is "the pilot," and his allowing of a
| non-pilot to push the buttons on his behalf was a necessary
| deviation to handle the emergency and land the plane.
| schmookeeg wrote:
| That's an interesting twist -- I really hope nobody at the
| FAA gets such a wild hair to try to pin a certificate
| action on the ATC controller (here or ever, in any
| situation), but --
|
| There is a SODA precedent for what you describe. As I
| understand it, a deaf pilot can get an instrument rating if
| they have a translator onboard to run comms for them and
| translate to ASL in-cockpit. So this is sort of the same
| situation you're contemplating, with a different chair
| position -- "translator" in the ATC room instead of the
| right seat.
|
| I do feel the regulations allow all sorts of circuitous
| logic, that any "outcome" could be achieved with enough
| incentive. ATC is the last place on earth where I feel
| cooperation is the inviolate rule of the day, so I'd hate
| for some maverick prosecutor to throw ice water on the
| pilot-controller relationship in a witch-hunt for blame.
| ledauphin wrote:
| there's absolutely no way the controller qualifies as PIC
| for this event - to be PIC of a non-unmanned aircraft you
| would have to be onboard the aircraft.
| JasonFruit wrote:
| If that's the case, shouldn't the controller be a
| Certificated Remote Pilot under Part 107 rules?
| Ancapistani wrote:
| Heh - I think this wouldn't fall under 107 because the
| aircraft weighs more than fifty pounds.
|
| ... unless they applied for and were granted a waiver
| beforehand, which would raise other questions :)
| JasonFruit wrote:
| That should probably be done as a precaution for all
| aircraft. It's a win for everyone.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| I'm far more familiar with operation under Part 107 (sUAS,
| i.e., drones <50#), but this seems consistent with how the
| FAA has it structured.
|
| I let kids fly my quadcopters regularly. Legally, I'm the
| "RPIC" - "remote pilot in command". The fact that someone
| else is physical operating the controls is irrelevant. I'm
| responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft. Because
| it's remote, there is a requirement that I be able to take
| immediate control of the aircraft if necessary; standing
| next to the person with the controller is sufficient to
| meet that requirement.
| djohnston wrote:
| Definitely not illegal in an emergency situation like this.
| bendbro wrote:
| Source: just trust me bro.
|
| It better be legal, or the FAA better not prosecute.
| helloworld11 wrote:
| This is why prosecutorial discretion exists. Yes, he could, but
| mitigating circunstancies can and often are considered, and
| local prosecutors or responsible regulators (the FAA in this
| case) simply decide not to file charges. Police often do the
| same in smaller cases. Example; if someone breaks a car or
| house window to save an occupant that's trapped from a fire.
| That's vandalism, but rarely prosecuted if it happens as far as
| I know.
| etskinner wrote:
| It's likely that there's an exception for emergency situations.
|
| In this case 'everyone on board' was 2 people, him and the
| incapacitated pilot.
| buildsjets wrote:
| Luckily, the FAA has a regulation for that. 14 CFR SS 91.3 (b):
|
| (b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the
| pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the
| extent required to meet that emergency.
| NoPie wrote:
| Only in America... :D
|
| But seriously most likely there are laws that allow you do
| things in emergency and not be prosecuted. In the UK it is
| called the doctrine of necessity. The example given was that
| only a doctor is allowed to give an order to use "prescription
| only" medicine. But in emergency situations where there is no
| doctor and you need to save a life, then it would be ok to do
| by anybody else as long as he has at least some idea what he is
| doing.
| alkonaut wrote:
| I picture this scenario every time I land that stupid Cessna in
| ms flight simulator. It's not going to happen, at least not until
| I follow someone up in an actual Cessna. But I'm not too worried
| about the landing by now at least.
| nilayj wrote:
| Why did this plane not have a copilot? Usually there are 2 people
| flying a plane?
| mb7733 wrote:
| This wasn't an airliner.
| alaricus wrote:
| Reminds me of this classic:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane!
|
| Where's Leslie Nielsen when you want him?
| edm0nd wrote:
| Really interesting.
|
| Also a throwback to the infamous "barefoot bandit" who learned
| how to fly a plane by:
|
| "It is believed that he learned how to fly small planes by
| reading aircraft manuals, handbooks, watching a "How to fly a
| small airplane" DVD, and playing flight simulator computer
| games."
|
| He stole and flew a Cessna 400 and a Cessna 182.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colton_Harris_Moore
| bendbro wrote:
| As a NTSB FAA CFI, MD, Esq, I am flabbergasted that a pilot would
| allow this to occur on his airplane. One thing they teach you at
| flight school (my teacher was the late Bill Hamland) is that as
| the pilot of an airplane, that plane is your own kingdom in the
| clouds. It your duty alone to see that it is run safely. This
| could go so far as forcibly ejecting an unruly passenger from the
| airplane- if their behavior is threatening the continued safety
| of the craft. This may seem extreme, but the safe flying of an
| airplane relies on a "supply chain of safety"- consisting of
| CEOs, engineers, FAA auditors, TSA, ATC, Pilots, and finally,
| passengers. As we've seen with other supply chains in the age of
| covid, they are easily disrupted, and with disastrous results. So
| this pilot should lose their license. Clearly they are not
| capable of upholding this supply chain of safety and are a threat
| to the safety of the skies. I wouldn't say anyone of
| distinguished age or ailment should be banned from piloting craft
| across the great blue, but we should at least make personal
| commitments to ensuring we have the stamina and health to pilot
| the plane for the time we are allotted to fly it. One thing I was
| taught to do at Flight School was a "preflight check" for my
| body. You close your eyes, and work your way down from your head
| to your toes: does my head feel good, my heart, my lungs? Only
| once you've given yourself a clean bill do you start that engine
| and take the plane into your hands.
| outworlder wrote:
| > As a NTSB FAA CFI, MD, Esq,
|
| I doubt you are any of those if that's what you have to say.
| bendbro wrote:
| What did you just say to me? I'll have you know I graduated
| in the top of my class in Flight School and have been
| involved in numerous, hairy IFR situations. I am trained in
| VFR, IFR, and CFR (combat). You are nothing to me but just
| another boot (non-pilot).
| supercheetah wrote:
| Mythbusters did something like this, but it was just using one of
| those big commercial training simulators instead of a real plane
| if I recall correctly, and showed that it was possible.
| tragictrash wrote:
| I would wager a small plane would be easier to land than a
| commercial airliner partially due to the fewer number of
| switches in the cockpit.
| wl wrote:
| Commercial airliners have autoland systems. Much less common
| in smaller planes.
| tragictrash wrote:
| The supposed scenario is manual landing, don't know if that
| was mentioned in the op
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Configuring these is very difficult (for a non-pilot) and
| it might rely on airport-side equipment that not all
| airports have.
| wl wrote:
| Configuring an autopilot is not that difficult when
| someone is telling you exactly what to do. It's also more
| likely to have a good result vs. relying on
| underdeveloped stick and rudder skills.
|
| In a situation where a non-pilot is pressed into flying
| an airliner because of pilot incapacitation, tiny
| municipal airstrips without ILS aren't really an option,
| anyway.
| sarpeedo wrote:
| Most modern airliners are equipped with capabilities to
| conduct Category IIIa ILS approaches with autoland.
|
| One would probably be able to coach a passenger through the
| steps necessary to get set up this kind of approach.
| bombcar wrote:
| My very first flight with a CFI had me do everything but the
| radio - the landing _is_ perhaps the hardest part but if you have
| someone to talk you through it, and you can get vectored to the
| _longest possible_ runway around, it 's not that hard (you can
| basically fly level above the runway and slowly bring back power,
| which will eventually touch down).
| jaywalk wrote:
| Garmin's got a relatively new system called Autoland that is
| designed for this exact situation. It allows a plane to land
| simply by pushing one button. It will pick the nearest
| appropriate airport, communicate with ATC, and land the plane
| entirely on its own. It's pretty amazing technology:
| https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/garmin-autoland-thi...
| tragictrash wrote:
| I've always said the reason we don't have flying cars yet is
| because people can't drive in 2D much less 3D. This gives me
| hope.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| The autopilot declares an emergency via transponder code and
| radio calls, which means suddenly everything else in the sky
| is moved out of your way for you and you're given near-
| exclusive use of whatever airport the autopilot picks.
|
| This does not bring us closer to "flying cars."
| moffkalast wrote:
| You mean like when cars turn on emergency blinkers any
| everything moves out of your way?
| tshaddox wrote:
| Isn't 3D easier? There sure is a lot more room.
| Ambolia wrote:
| Empty air, a 2d empty plane would be easy too. If it was 3d
| tunnels it would be hard, those Descent videogames were
| tricky.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| It is definitely not easier. I mean avoiding a mid air
| collision might be but that's rarely what kills a pilot.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| no : stalls are deadly in 3D, send the ground at you with
| no control unless one recovers
| PeterisP wrote:
| 3D has the problem is that you can't just stop, wait and
| think if anything is totally weird. A self-driving car can
| pull over if it's confused, a self-flying plane can't.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Then again, self flying planes have been a thing since
| the early 1910s. It's far easier when you can just pick
| and altitude and heading and you're basically 99.9% in
| the clear that you won't hit anything.
|
| In a car that approach will get you roughly a few meters
| forward, so it's incredibly hard to make a working car
| autopilot in comparison.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Except when something breaks, and you need an equivalent of
| parking by the side of the road.
| outworlder wrote:
| The more axis you have to account for, the more complicated
| it gets.
|
| Go play a car simulation game. Done? Now go play Descent
| and tell us if it's any easier.
| p1mrx wrote:
| It's not the 3D that kills you; it's the sudden 2D at the
| end.
| anthropodie wrote:
| Yup but I always thought what if we do like a 1 feet
| above the ground? We avoid death by plummeting from the
| sky.
|
| There are other advantages like
|
| - we don't need roads and we save a lot of energy and
| money on their construction and maintenance.
|
| - we also save energy by going from point A to point B
| directly instead of following the road.
|
| - No friction between tyre and ground
|
| I guess the amount of energy required to keep vehicle
| above ground by 1 feet is more than all the savings
| combined.
| travisjungroth wrote:
| You're not going point to point a foot above the surface
| unless you're over water (calm seas at that). Soviets
| built a concept plane that did just this, though.
| Airplanes are more efficient near the ground than a
| little bit away, but not as efficient as at normal
| cruising altitudes.
| tialaramex wrote:
| You're probably thinking of Ground Effect Vehicles
| (sometimes Ekranoplans). The Russians built lots, not
| just as a concept, if you own a huge lake (not an ocean)
| they're somewhat practical for crossing it quickly. The
| Americans and Canadians (who also own some large lakes)
| have likewise built some of these.
|
| The Ground Effect, as its name suggests, only exists near
| the ground, so in one sense you're "flying" but if the
| surface drops away you will fall too. Hence it's good on
| a lake or possibly open plains, but won't work on normal
| ground with rises and hills and so on, never mind
| buildings and trees.
| travisjungroth wrote:
| I was thinking of the single giant transatlantic troop
| carrier they built. You're right, there are others.
| babypuncher wrote:
| It is considerably more complicated. Apart from added axes
| of movement (not just vertical, but pitch/roll), you also
| have to contend with the fact that air is the only source
| of friction. Acceleration and breaking are much slower than
| something with wheels on the ground. There is a reason why
| flying a plane in Grand Theft Auto is much harder than
| driving a car, even with the simplified physics and vehicle
| controls.
|
| If we could make aircraft that handle in our atmosphere
| like the spaceship in Descent, then that would close the
| gap a bit. But I'm not holding my breath.
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| The real reason is that no one wants thousands of flying cars
| buzzing everywhere over a city.
| judge2020 wrote:
| The real reason is that we don't have one-person aircraft
| that can stop and hover with <300ft stopping distance and
| is under 10 ft wide. Helicopters come close but they're
| expensive and I'd hate to see parking for such a model of
| transportation.
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| Helicopters aren't really allowed to fly over most areas
| in cities though, except for police and other emergency
| helicopters. The noise and danger make it a no go, even
| if they were smaller.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Helicopters can fly wherever they want, barring the same
| restrictions that apply to fixed-wing planes. For the
| most part, there aren't really any helicopter-specific
| restrictions.
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| Yes, but this doesn't really help the case for flying
| cars either way.
|
| Edit to clarify: Presumably you'd want to land your
| flying car almost anywhere in the city; this is not going
| to happen anytime soon, for the same reasons that
| helicopters and planes can't.
| aksss wrote:
| Buzzing should emphasize the loud freaking noise these
| things would create landing, taking off, and flying at low
| altitude. Annoying to say the least. What we don't need
| more of is noise pollution.
| pilot7378535 wrote:
| "Flying cars" made sense to me until I started flying. Now I
| think "driving airplanes" is the more appropriate phrase for
| what might be in the realm of possibility.
|
| For example: here's how you'd prepare to visit distant
| relatives with each vehicle:
|
| Car: load up however much weight you want, turn the keys and
| start driving. Low on gas? Just turn off at the next exit.
| Weather looks bad? Just drive slowly and carefully and you'll
| be fine.
|
| Airplane: visually inspect your vehicle, be careful
| distributing limited weight around the cabin, get a weather
| briefing and accept that many days you just can't fly, break
| out your slide rule (literally!) and plot a course between
| waypoints, with calculations accounting for wind deflection,
| magnetic variation, fuel burn, and various other factors. And
| don't forget to plan out refueling stops and emergency
| airfields too. Then run through your checklist and (once you
| get permission from the tower, if any) take off.
|
| I never appreciated how user-friendly modern cars are until
| flying. And air travelers are spoiled by all-weather
| jetliners piloted by the pros.
| shortstuffsushi wrote:
| How much weight do you think it would realistically take to
| alter flight in a plane of this size? For instance, if both
| the pilot and passenger weighed e.g. 200lbs and sat toward
| the left of the plane, would that considerably (or perhaps
| even just perceptibly) impact flight? Same for some of the
| other variables, is there an appreciable different for
| things like magnetic variation? Wind, of course, seems
| reasonable - the others I've heard less about. I don't fly,
| and have never been in a small engine craft.
| pilot7378535 wrote:
| Not sure about the plane from the original post; it looks
| pretty hefty. And lateral weight is so close to the
| center of mass that it's unlikely to have much effect.
| What's more of a concern is having a bunch of weight far
| from the plane's center of mass, where the weight tries
| to lever the plane end over end, increasing the risk of a
| stall. I heard about a crash where the pilot's seat
| adjuster didn't lock, so when he took off his seat slid
| all the way back (just a few inches) but that was enough
| to cause a crash. Could theoretically happen to any size
| plane, but matters more with little light planes like
| those in general aviation.
|
| I have no idea if "Spirit Airlines weight distribution
| issue" actually happened, but it's funny so I'll share:
| https://youtu.be/YvfYK0EEhK4
|
| Magnetic variation in my area is +20deg (west) off true
| north. So if I want to follow longitude line true north I
| need to fly such that the compass reads 20deg NEN. And
| don't forget to account for the hunks of metal _inside_
| the airplane, which can affect the compass differently
| depending on your heading.
| dangwu wrote:
| Hasn't autopilot had "auto-land" technology for many years now?
| How is Garmin's different?
| jaywalk wrote:
| Garmin's is literally "oh shit the pilot passed out!" and an
| entirely inexperienced passenger can push a single button,
| ending up with the plane stopped on the nearest appropriate
| runway with the engine off. The autoland system in airliners
| requires a lot of setup by the pilots and continuous
| monitoring all the way down, plus working ILS (instrument
| landing system) equipment at the airport.
| scottyah wrote:
| US military drones have been doing it for decades now.
| arianvanp wrote:
| Not really. You need to intercept an ILS beacon and not all
| airfields have them and you still need to find the intercept.
|
| Garmin allows true auto landing without ground equipment
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| Video of the landing, it's very nicely done.
| https://twitter.com/aviationbrk/status/1524410837414391809
| rootusrootus wrote:
| And that's not a little 172, that's a bit bigger! Nicely done
| indeed. I think the guy deserves an honorary set of wings for
| that.
| avemg wrote:
| I've made worse landings with a CFI sitting next to me in the
| cockpit when I was starting out. Landed a bit long but
| otherwise looked like a soft touchdown and a straight roll.
| Very impressive!
| kloch wrote:
| You see worse landings every year at Oshkosh.
|
| A little hard and nose-first but at least he kept it on the
| ground and didn't bounce-bounce-crash.
| aasasd wrote:
| To my noob eye, it seems that the person did absolutely no
| pitching to shave off the speed. That's the hard part, in my
| very limited experience with simulators. Dunno if this plane
| does usually need pitching, but I guess they were very lucky to
| have enough of the runway.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| https://nitter.kavin.rocks/aviationbrk/status/15244108374143...
| vmception wrote:
| bravo! any idea how hard or easy this is? did the passenger land
| on an airstrip or where? all details lacking
| andrewmunsell wrote:
| They landed at an airport. I think the CNN article has a bit
| more context:
|
| https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/florida-passenger-lands-p...
|
| > Morgan learned the passenger on the line had never flown a
| plane -- but had been around aviation and seen other pilots
| fly.
|
| If they've been around planes like this before, I don't think
| it'd be _that_ difficult to land in one piece with guidance
| (and the ATC seemed to be a CFI as well). But what do I know, I
| 'm still working on my PPL.
|
| Hopefully the passenger got his logbook signed for his first
| solo
| imoverclocked wrote:
| Can't solo with passengers... :) this was commercial
| experience!
| andrewmunsell wrote:
| Ah very true :) Joking aside, I don't want to make it seem
| like I am discounting their achievement. It's a very high
| pressure situation with a lot of potential for a bad
| outcome, and they handled it extremely well.
| edrxty wrote:
| It's not hard, if they had spent time around aircraft they
| provably had a rudimentary understanding of the controls. The
| dicey part is staying calm during the final stage of landing.
| You need to stay slow but not too slow and not panic and do
| something crazy as student pilots occasionally do early in
| training (going too fast, trying to force the plane to land but
| just porpoising down the runway, freezing, flaring too early
| and holding the flare, etc)
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| I once took a gliding plane lesson with an instructor. I had
| never flown a plane before but was able to do the whole flight
| including a winch start, circling up in a thermal and landing
| on my own just by the instructor telling me what do. So I don't
| think it's hard if you have a good instructor and stay cool
| enough to listen and do what you are told to do.
| asdfman123 wrote:
| We can probably assume it's a small passenger plane. I'm not a
| pilot but I've landed them a few times in flight sims.
|
| It's a matter of getting the right level of descent and setting
| a few knobs and switches correctly. I could probably explain to
| you how to do it if you were playing a video game.
|
| The real impressive thing is they were able to keep calm and go
| through the steps, or figure out how to use the radio, without
| freaking out. Not everyone is capable of that.
| vmception wrote:
| It says Cessna even in this article, those are small planes.
| The one detail that it doesnt miss :)
| aero-glide2 wrote:
| Im not familiar with this plane, but the Airbus a320 has an
| auto-landing autopilot. I wonder how often that's used though.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Most commercial airliners have the same system. It's mainly
| used in bad weather when the visibility is below minimums for
| a manual landing. CAT IIIc autoland (the highest/most
| advanced) is certified for zero-visibility landings.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Passenger-jet autoland systems still rely on a lot of prior
| configuration such as dialing in ILS frequencies, setting the
| right autopilot settings, etc.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| A Cessna 208 is definitely not in that category of aircraft;
| this is a small (<10 pax), single-engined turboprop.
| zokier wrote:
| That being said I, with no aviation experience, definitely
| would feel more comfortable attempting to land a Cessna
| than an Airbus even if it were more manual operation
| Merad wrote:
| Flying a small plane like this really isn't all that hard as
| long as a) the weather is good, b) the plane itself is working
| normally, and c) you have a basic understanding of how the
| controls work. When people are learning to fly for their
| private pilot's license it's not terribly unusual for people to
| solo (be competent enough to fly alone) after 5-10 hours of
| instruction. Granted many people do take longer, but it's often
| because their instruction is very spread out. At typically >
| $150 per hour many people can only afford a few hours of
| lessons per month.
| js2 wrote:
| Similar thing happened to Doug White in 2009 while in a twin-
| engine King Air 200. He had limited flight experience on single-
| engine Cessna 172s, but no flight experience on a King Air 200.
|
| https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2009/april/14/u...
|
| Simulation of the flight set to ATC recordings:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqPvVxxIDr0
| kingcharles wrote:
| I thought they must be reposting this landing when I saw the
| headline! It's a great video though. I look forward to a new
| one from this landing in the near future.
| zendaven wrote:
| Did the passenger have to move the pilot out of his seat? Or is
| the plane designed so that the passenger can also pilot in
| scenarios like this?
| piperswe wrote:
| Typically all the controls are accessible in both front seats -
| there's a yoke for each seat and the main controls are near the
| center console
| ggcdn wrote:
| its every bored daydreaming passenger's dream come true!
| georgecmu wrote:
| A reconstruction of the flight with the full comms recording and
| a partial transcription:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euHZI0f2fBU
| oh_sigh wrote:
| ATC audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MDwzNtDMlA
|
| Listening to the passenger, it does sound like they have a
| modicum of flight experience.
| the_af wrote:
| Agreed. He even understands some of the lingo. Doesn't mean he
| knew how to fly any airplane (or land one!) but he seems at
| least technically minded.
| Maursault wrote:
| I grew up in Florida. It would take all my fingers and toes and
| more to count the number of times I have seen articles or even
| witnessed personally from the beach a pilot of a small craft
| either die naturally at the controls or have some medical event
| that causes a crash and death.
|
| Why are small planes necessary? Am I wrong to believe what it
| seems like, that the overwhelmingly popular purpose is
| _entertainment_? Is anyone else sick of being lead poisoned?
|
| I am all for scrutinizing and restricting the driver's licenses
| of the elderly or those with severe medical issues that will
| inevitably lead to an accident. This goes doubly so for pilots. I
| know there's a lot young pilots. I take no issue with you. But it
| seems like most pilots and owners of small planes are over
| retirement age. It is the entitlement that gets under my skin,
| the entitlement to poison everyone on the ground with lead as
| well as put innocent bystanders in danger. Why do we allow this?
| There are severe problems with conservative ideals, and mainly it
| has to do with entitlement, a telltale symptom of mental illness,
| namely, narcissism. Fuck narcissists.
| jcrawfordor wrote:
| 2020 numbers from the FAA show that while GA overall had 7,600
| hours of personal use, there were 11,854 hours of commercial
| use in non-Part 135 GA. We can assume that single-engine light
| aircraft are more likely to be in personal use, but they are
| also the most common category for instruction, which is the
| most common commercial use at 5,498 hours. It might seem a bit
| tautological to say that "a major purpose of GA is train pilots
| for GA," but GA pilots are the beginning of the career path for
| on-demand and airline pilots, and the current feeling is that
| there needs to be more to sustain airline staffing. Major
| commercial uses of single-engine aircraft include light cargo
| (especially the Caravan, involved in this case), air medical
| transportation, and aerial surveying and observation (e.g.
| railroad and pipeline ROW safety inspection, a very common use
| of light aircraft where I live). What I mean to say is that
| there are a wide variety of useful applications of small
| aircraft, not the least of which is instruction---their second
| most common application.
|
| The phenomenon you get at has more to do with the historical
| demographics of aviation. For various reasons that boil down
| mostly to World War II (which had the effect of a massive
| government subsidy of both aircraft and pilot training), the
| cost of entering aviation as a hobby or career has
| significantly increased over the last decades. Very few young
| people can afford to obtain a pilot's license and operate an
| aircraft today, compared to say the 1970s. This is of course a
| major contributing factor to concerns over staffing levels in
| the airlines. Similarly, the pace of both development of new
| aircraft and replacement of the existing aviation fleet has
| slowed significantly since the '70s. This is most obvious in
| the fact that a huge portion of the GA fleet today, especially
| aircraft in personal and instruction uses, were manufactured in
| the '70s. Both the pilots and the aircraft themselves are aging
| out, and much of the HN dialog around the issue of leaded fuel
| seems to miss this point. While the FAA's very slow progress in
| approval on a 100LL equivalent non-leaded fuel is indeed a
| problem, I think a much bigger problem is the fact that not
| even flight schools and charter companies can afford to obtain
| aircraft with engine designs much newer than the period of a
| decade after WWII. Unleaded and diesel aviation piston engines
| are in service right now, but certifying them for use in older
| aircraft tends to be prohibitively expensive, if it's even
| practical. The cost increase from a used but current aircraft
| from the '70s or '80s to a newer design more likely to be
| trusted on unleaded fuel, on the low end, tends to be a
| difference between sub-$100k and over-$500k. The argument I am
| making is that the continued use of leaded fuel probably has
| less to do with the fuel than with the fact that the current
| market and regulatory situation in aviation has almost frozen
| the fleet in time.
|
| There are also obviously concerns about medical certification
| of private pilots, particularly with the introduction of the
| BasicMed program which, in practice, makes it significantly
| easier to hold a pilots license with ongoing medical concerns.
| Reform of the medical certification system is critical, but
| it's probably more important that we address the underlying
| phenomenon that entering aviation as a career has become more
| and more difficult to such an extent that the average age of
| professional pilots has consistently increased for decades.
| Mandatory retirement for commercial pilots was raised from 60
| to 65 in order to mitigate this issue, but that was only a
| temporary fix, and the five years it really bought have long
| since passed.
|
| All of this said, accidents due to medical incapacitation are
| actually pretty rare. Bruce Landsberg of the NTSB, in a letter
| to _AOPA Pilot,_ put it at about a dozen incidents per year in
| GA... out of around 400 fatal accidents. This actually seems to
| overstate the problem as not all of those dozen are fatal and
| the NTSB sometimes ends up attributing loss of orientation to
| medical incapacitation simply because they couldn 't find any
| other likely reason. For this simple reason, "narcissism" of
| older pilots is probably not a major contribution to aviation
| accidents. More philosophically, narcissism is no doubt a
| contributor to common types of serious and fatal accidents like
| unintended IMC, but if anything the young are probably the
| greatest offenders there.
| causi wrote:
| I was all ready to criticize you for blowing things out of
| proportion but then I checked the numbers. Damn, small aircraft
| create 50% of airborne lead contamination.
| postalrat wrote:
| What do you think of all the people young drivers kill? Should
| people be prevented from driving they are a bit more
| responsible? Maybe around 30 years.
| Maursault wrote:
| Poor judgement is not the same as incapacity. We have a
| framework to deal with poor judgement. What we also need is a
| framework to deal with incapacity.
| ledauphin wrote:
| we do - they're called Aviation Medical Examiners.
|
| The pilot operating this flight would have had, at minimum,
| a 2nd class medical, which has to be renewed every 12
| months.
| Maursault wrote:
| > which has to be renewed every 12 months.
|
| That is simply insufficient. Introduce age to the
| standard and increase frequency of examinations with
| increasing age. And let's strongly discourage pilots over
| a certain age where reaction time, eye-sight and
| cognition is known to become more deficient. Yes,
| definitely let's discourage and restrict old people from
| operating dangerous machinery, no matter how rich and
| entitled and personally insulted they may be.
| ledauphin wrote:
| age is in fact part of the standard...
| Maursault wrote:
| I think 4 examinations a year for any pilot over 60 is
| not unreasonable. Because only one examination a year for
| a 70yo is definitely absurdly unreasonable.
| nojonestownpls wrote:
| You're entirely ignoring the cost vs benefit view that the
| original comment brings up:
|
| > Why are small planes necessary? Am I wrong to believe what
| it seems like, that the overwhelmingly popular purpose is
| _entertainment_?
|
| There's much much more positive benefit to the society from
| allowing young people to drive. It allows them to exercise
| their independence, socialize, escape bad (home or other)
| environments, explore the society they're about to enter. I'm
| not one to say passion (for flying) or entertainment are not
| good reasons to do something, but they stand _much_ weaker as
| benefits when compared to the benefits of allowing young
| drivers.
| ManBlanket wrote:
| Man I'm making a big assumption here but for someone who hasn't
| experienced a plane crashing into their home you seem to have a
| lot of angst for something that doesn't affect you in the
| scheme of things. Are you self aware enough to ask yourself if
| you're foisting your own baggage onto the shoulders of people
| and things you view as outsiders? Let me be the voice of reason
| here, my man. You're the only person that has the power to make
| you chill the fuck out. If you want to represent whatever tribe
| you hail from as better than conservatives, the elderly, or
| small planes I guess, you gotta change your attitude. The only
| thing launching into a weird tirade about airplanes, lead, and
| the elderly over an article about a guy landing a plane makes
| you seem kinda narcissistic, entitled, and maybe even a little
| bit mentally ill yourself. Your life would only get better the
| second you decide living in a haze of anger over shit you can't
| change is no means to an end. If you're so focused on that
| anger, you're not focused on the things you can change to make
| your world better. Please, chill out, go pick up trash in the
| park or something. I promise it'll make you feel better.
| Maursault wrote:
| FWIW, your entire comment is an ad hominem fallacy. You must
| ignore the person and focus on their argument in order to
| argue rationally.
|
| > doesn't affect you in the scheme of things.
|
| I have subsonic hearing and I live in a rural area, not
| particularly near any small or large airport. What drives me
| nuts are diesel school buses (something about the low
| frequencies) and those really slow single prop planes that
| seem to want to linger around my airspace, sound-polluting
| the entire area with harmful low frequencies. And for what?
| Entertainment and entitlement. We need diesel school buses
| right now and until electric buses become available to school
| districts, so I'll just deal with that. A vehicle gets you
| from point A to point B. Most of these planes and flights,
| nearly all of them, leave and return to the same airport a
| few hours later. They're not traveling anywhere, they're just
| bored. While I can empathize with boredom, I really don't
| tolerate being victimized by the bored. It isn't just me.
| Wildlife and Mother Nature and gravitational potential hates
| small engine planes.
| mb7733 wrote:
| For one thing, for remote communities, small planes are an
| absolute necessity, not simply for recreation. You've
| lumped together all small aircraft with hobby flying.
|
| That aside, I think your environmental argument against
| hobby flying is interesting, but this other chip you have
| on your shoulder regarding "entitlement" and "the elderly"
| and "entertainment" people isn't very persuasive.
|
| Dismissing something as "just entertainment for entitled
| people" is silly. Hobby flying is far from the only
| environmentally damaging thing that humans do only for
| entertainment.
| Maursault wrote:
| > for remote communities, small planes are an absolute
| necessity
|
| No problems there, so long as remote means not here,
| except lack of specifics. What remote communities have an
| absolute necessity for small planes?
|
| > Hobby flying is far from the only environmentally
| damaging thing that humans do only for entertainment.
|
| This is Whataboutism, a variant of the tu quoque fallacy,
| but it also has maybe a bit of Bandwagon fallacy as well.
| In any event, this is a fallacious argument.
| mb7733 wrote:
| >No problems there, so long as remote means not here,
| except lack of specifics. What remote communities have an
| absolute necessity for small planes?
|
| There are plenty in Northern Canada [1]. That is the only
| area I've been personally, but I imagine there are
| similar areas around the world. Possibly also of interest
| is bush flying in general [2].
|
| > This is Whataboutism, a variant of the tu quoque
| fallacy, but it also has maybe a bit of Bandwagon fallacy
| as well. In any event, this is a fallacious argument.
|
| The habit of name-dropping logically fallacies and
| thinking it is some kind of slam dunk is so cliche that
| it needs it's own name.
|
| I was not saying that we should ignore the impact of
| hobby flying because something else was worse
| (whataboutism), nor that you cannot criticise hobby
| flying because you do other things that are comparable
| (tu quoque), nor that hobby flying is good because it is
| popular (bandwagon).
|
| My point was simply that doing something "only for
| entertainment" is not in itself a bad thing! Most of what
| people do, besides surviving, is essentially for
| pleasure. In fact, that people enjoy doing it is a point
| in favour of hobby flying!
|
| The question is whether the benefits of allowing it
| (pleasure, availability of trained pilots, freedom)
| outweigh the costs (environmental, noise, danger).
|
| [1] https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-
| canada/news/2020/08/new-m...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_flying
| pmyteh wrote:
| > The habit of name-dropping logically fallacies and
| thinking it is some kind of slam dunk is so cliche that
| it needs it's own name.
|
| It's sometimes called the 'fallacy fallacy': the
| assertion that because the argument is fallacious the
| conclusions are also necessarily false (as opposed to
| potentially true but infelicitously argued).
| Maursault wrote:
| > There are plenty in Northern Canada
| Thanks. I love that because I live in Virginia. Let
| Northern Canada have all the small planes they can eat.
|
| > The habit of name-dropping logically fallacies and
| thinking it is some kind, of slam dunk is so cliche that
| it needs it's own name. Oh, we have a
| had a name for it for millennia. It's called logical
| argument, aka rational discourse.
|
| > My point was simply that doing something "only for
| entertainment" is not in itself a bad thing!
| But one can't entirely isolate the right of entertainment
| here as the only concern. No one's right to entertain
| themselves supersedes the rights of everyone else not to
| be disturbed by harmful loud sounds, or their right not
| to be lead poisoned, or their right of safety from
| falling aircraft. You are correct that there is
| absolutely nothing wrong with someone entertaining
| themselves... except when it violates the rights of
| everyone else.
| exhilaration wrote:
| That's very interesting. It sounds like being one of the top
| destination for retirees might play in this -- Florida is #2
| when it comes to oldest population
| https://www.prb.org/resources/which-us-states-are-the-oldest...
| and I would bet it's #1 when it comes to oldest pilots (and
| drivers) who are most likely to "die naturally" when at the
| controls.
| topher515 wrote:
| It seems like you're conflating two issues here:
|
| 1. Old people like to fly small planes and crash them more than
| others [citation needed?]
|
| 2. Small planes emit toxic chemicals that are slowly poisoning
| everyone
|
| Personally I'm horrified that we allow issue (2.) to continue
| given all we know now about the dangers of lead poisoning. But
| I don't particularly care about issue (1.) since I generally
| think people should be allowed to risk their own lives as they
| see fit.
| Maursault wrote:
| > since I generally think people should be allowed to risk
| their own lives as they see fit.
|
| But what if your life was in danger because of this. Because
| it is, even if the risk to you and your loved ones is low, it
| is not zero. If there was good reason for accepting this
| risk, that would be one thing. But there simply is no other
| rational reason than thrill for flying a small plane around
| for a few hours and landing in the same place. Someone's
| else's right to thrill does not eclipse my right not to be
| assaulted by harmful sounds, my right not to breathe harmful
| chemicals, and my right to not to be killed by a crashing
| plane.
| zokier wrote:
| How many bystanders have died, or even injured, in hobby
| aircraft crashes?
| pilot7378535 wrote:
| I hear it happens with emergency beach landings
| especially--consequently they're somewhat of a last
| resort. Couldn't find a statistic though.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/02/sunbathers-
| kil...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatalities_from_avi
| ati...
| throwawayboise wrote:
| This was a turboprop, so no lead at least.
| Maursault wrote:
| Nice catch.
| mastax wrote:
| The FAA has been dragging its feet certifying lead free
| aviation fuel.
| mmcconnell1618 wrote:
| Mythbusters once went to a commercial airline simulator to test
| the idea that a passenger with no training could land the plane.
| Without ATC help, it wasn't a great outcome. With ATC, they
| faired much better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ8K-hOcRHk
| hugh-avherald wrote:
| Large aircraft are one thing, but most folks could land a light
| aircraft most of the time in good weather with barely any
| training. But most is like 80% and there's probably a 10%
| chance of dying or at least badly damaging the aircraft.
| pc86 wrote:
| Not nitpicking because I agree with you, but in an emergency
| situation like this if you can walk away from the airplane,
| the condition of it is irrelevant. So I think at least 85-90%
| of the time (in good weather with a crosswind component below
| 7-8kts or so) everyone would be okay.
|
| And absolutely agreed on the large aircraft part. I'm a
| private pilot, but no instrument cert yet, with only piston
| single experience - not even a high performance or complex
| endorsement - and I'm pretty sure if I had to land a widebody
| commercial airliner the only difference between me and
| someone with no experience is I'd sound better on the radio.
| I think the end result would probably be the same.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| I think the first obstacle for a layman to land a plane is
| to not panic and figure out how to work the radio (without
| pressing the wrong thing and accidentally shutting down the
| engines or something equally disastrous) so they can then
| follow the instructions calmly.
|
| I'd expect most people that would fail would fail at this
| stage - if they can get past that, their odds improve a
| lot.
| dlisboa wrote:
| That's exactly right. This pilot on YouTube did this test
| with a layperson and the main issue was getting comms up.
| It took like 20 minutes if I remember correctly, but
| after that the landing itself went alright.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw6mjVIdbbc
| im3w1l wrote:
| It's less of a disaster than you'd think. Even if you
| shut off the engines the plane can glide for a long time.
| So if you don't panic you will have time to turn them
| back on.
| pc86 wrote:
| You're right, but in this situation - a non-pilot is in a
| piston single with a pilot who becomes incapacitated -
| what are the odds they're not already panicking?
| spc476 wrote:
| Years ago I had the opportunity to "fly" an A320 simulator (the
| type they use to train pilots) at Miami International Airport.
| Yes, with instructions, I was able to successfully land the
| airplane, and found it easier to do so than with Microsoft
| Flight Simulator. It was just setting a few controls, and on a
| small monitor in the middle of the dashboard, keep the plus
| sign in the square.
|
| Without help? Not a chance ...
| tptacek wrote:
| The CNN article has audio. I can't believe how calm the passenger
| is.
|
| https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/florida-passenger-lan...
| civil_engineer wrote:
| Pilot here. I'm floored that a person with no flying experience
| could put this airplane down without a scratch.
|
| Air traffic controllers are not necessarily pilots, but luckily,
| this one was a pilot and certified instructor. ATC and passenger
| worked through a stressful situation to produce an amazing
| outcome. Bravo!
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| I had flight lessons, and after a few hours of training (most
| of which were unrelated to landing), I was able to land on a
| short runway, about 2000 feet long.
|
| Landing on a long runway (10001 feet / 3048 meters [1]) as was
| done here is much easier, as long as the plane doesn't
| malfunction and visibility is good. So I'm not that surprised
| that some people would be able to do this given good
| instructions over the radio / phone. Especially so if the
| person doing it has witnessed landings from a cockpit before,
| which may have been the case here.
|
| With such a long and wide runway, if you can direct the plane
| to fly over the runway and then cut off power, that should be
| enough to land the plane somewhat safely I would think.
|
| [1] Runway 10L at https://skyvector.com/airport/PBI/Palm-Beach-
| International-A...
| pilot7378535 wrote:
| Same, I'd hate to see a novice try to land on a narrow 2000'
| runway hemmed in by tall trees and a "snotty" 7+ kt crosswind
| component pushing the plane around.
|
| Lucky they were in Florida with working radios and gas in the
| tank to reach an accommodating runway. None of that should
| detract from the emergency pilot's excellent handling of the
| situation though--bravo!
|
| [edit] Apparently there was a significant crosswind:
| KPBI 101553Z 02011G17KT 10SM SCT042 SCT046 26/15
|
| Even more impressive then!
| [deleted]
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| Yes, to be clear I'm not saying that anyone would be able
| to do this, just keeping cool enough to do anything decent
| (including talking on the radio) was already a huge
| achievement.
|
| My point was just that this is feasible a lot of the time
| with some good radio help .
| mattmaroon wrote:
| Idk, I've only flown 172s and have only landed a handful of
| times myself, but I think you could fairly easily talk someone
| through landing with an at least decent chance of survival if
| the weather was good. I mean this is not an experiment you want
| to run, of course. But landing in good conditions is pretty
| intuitive. You can tell if your angle to the runway is good or
| bad pretty easily and just adjust the throttle. And those
| things will stop themselves with plenty of runway left. You
| could probably land a small plane halfway down the runway, not
| know how to operate the brakes, and still come to a crawl
| before the end in most places.
|
| I wouldn't take an even money wager on it but I don't think
| it's terribly unlikely to have a decent landing. Especially
| since the pilot likely was showing him the controls in air
| before going unresponsive.
| mhb wrote:
| > I think you could fairly easily talk someone through
| landing
|
| _The bad news is that it is 10 /28 (east-west) and the wind
| was reported from the north at 11 knots gusting 17.
|
| KPBI 101553Z 02011G17KT 10SM SCT042 SCT046 26/15
|
| A student pilot with 20 hours of training probably wouldn't
| have been signed off by his/her/zir/their instructor to
| operate in that kind of crosswind._
|
| From: https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2022/05/10/a-hero-
| flies-th...
| imwillofficial wrote:
| "signed off by his/her/zir/their instructor to operate"
| What does "zir" mean? I've seen it around but can't
| remember where.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| it's an old-style gender neutral pronoun that has mostly
| fallen out of favor
| cecilpl2 wrote:
| It's a gender neutral pronoun.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| How is it different than using "their"?
| cecilpl2 wrote:
| Some people feel like "their" is plural and therefore
| invented a singular gender-neutral pronoun.
| mhb wrote:
| It is clear that it is singular.
| shiomiru wrote:
| Unlike singular their, it's non-standard.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| It shows you're woke.
| mhb wrote:
| And/or using it ironically, as he does.
| aksss wrote:
| With woke pronouns, I feel like an 87 yo man around
| tiktok - don't care, not going to learn it, not enough
| time left on Earth to give a crap, happy to glide towards
| the grave without giving it a second thought. Y'all do
| you.
| CDSlice wrote:
| I've seen it used as a gender neutral pronoun and some
| people prefer it to his/her but most people now just use
| "their" when they don't know don't know the gender of the
| person they are talking about.
| lordgrenville wrote:
| It's a phrase Greenspun uses a lot on his blog, mocking
| excessive concern with gender pronouns. (In between a lot
| of interesting content, he constantly bangs on about 2
| topics: how dumb he thinks liberals are, and how US
| divorce law discriminates against men.)
| TillE wrote:
| Somehow it's always family court with these guys.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| That's neat and it does make it a bit more impressive. But
| an instructor who thought you had a 90% chance of landing
| without dying wouldn't accept 10% risk and sign off, so it
| doesn't say much about the overall odds.
|
| But I didn't realize he was flying a turboprop in
| crosswinds though!
| rburhum wrote:
| I have only flown a plane once. Took off and landed it without
| a problem with an instructor next to me. He said I was really
| good and complemented me a lot because he thought I was a
| natural during the simulator class and the real Cessna flight.
| I just thanked him. Do you want to know my secret? I never told
| him that I worked a year at MS Game Studios as a dev for MS
| Flight Simulator.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Listening to the audio of the conversation, it doesn't seem
| like the passenger has no flying experience...
|
| At minimum they must have spent significant time around
| aviation or be ex-military.
|
| e: From another comment on Reddit
|
| > Examples: > The passenger knew what button to press on the
| yoke to transmit to ATC. > The passenger knew aviation
| phraseology and phonetics "333 Lima Delta". > The passenger
| knew where the altimeter was and his altitude "I'm maintaining
| 9100 feet" > Passenger was able to identify the transponder and
| enter a squawk code. > Passenger knew what the vertical speed
| indicator was "I'm descending right now at 550 feet a minute
| passing 8640 feet". > My wife, who flies with me regularly,
| might get one or two of those items, but probably couldn't
| point out the transponder, much less enter a squawk code
| without instructions.
| travisgriggs wrote:
| Got my PPL 2 years ago (almost), and love taking people for
| rides to various nearby destinations. It's my "Sunday Drive"
| and a chance to share with others.
|
| These questions often get answered pretty quickly. We get
| talking on our headsets, now I'm about to taxi, and so I make
| a call. Shortly there after, when I'm talking to my
| passenger, there's a nervous 'Can other people hear me??'
| 'Nope, I push this button right here to broadcast to
| everyone, otherwise it's just you and me.' 'Where is that
| button? Is this it? I don't want to push it.'
|
| In a small airplane, any interested passenger will ask a
| number of questions that help that acclimate. If this guy was
| a friend of the pilot and flew a bit with him, he had some
| familiarity.
|
| Is there a full recording up anywhere yet?
|
| I would love to know how fast they landed him. My inclination
| would be to talk someone through a landing that was a little
| faster than usual, because you have more control, and don't
| have to worry about the flair so much. Just drive it gently
| onto the runway and then slow it down after that. Which works
| fine for a little plane on a big runway.
| egwor wrote:
| I reckon I could do most of those things except transmit to
| ATC and squawk. I suspect I could google the rest or call
| someone to tell me how to. If there's a manual up there, then
| maybe that will have info?
| jrockway wrote:
| Yeah, also not a pilot and I could do those things. But I
| am an enthusiast, kind of on my list of things to do but
| haven't done yet.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > If there's a manual up there, then maybe that will have
| info?
|
| I can't imaging myself getting anything from an unknown
| manual full of jargon in such a stressful environment!
| verelo wrote:
| Not sure if you've ever seen the POH for a C172, but it
| is thick. Example: https://www.montereynavyflyingclub.org
| /Other%20Docs/Cessna-1...
|
| Personally, ATC is your best bet here. I'd say a lot of
| people who have ever flown a flight simulator can get the
| plan low and slow enough to not cause death upon impact.
| I would anticipate a bumpy landing, some injury and a
| lost plane...so this outcome is pretty impressive imo.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > Not sure if you've ever seen the POH for a C172, but it
| is thick. Example: https://www.montereynavyflyingclub.org
| /Other%20Docs/Cessna-1...
|
| Thanks for the link, it's definitely not the kind of
| things you're supposed to discover while attempting to
| pilot a plane for the first time.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| I feel like the only thing a manual would be good for would
| be distracting you from flying the plane just long enough
| to enter some position that you (as someone with no
| training) won't be able to recover it from.
| mikeryan wrote:
| Total spit ball here but just "riding" in a small Cessna
| seems like a pretty intimate experience. I wonder if he had
| spent a bunch of time in the passenger seat (as a job as a
| surveyor or ranger or something) and just got to know his
| way around a bit.
| DocTomoe wrote:
| > If there's a manual up there, then maybe that will have
| info?
|
| Many (most?) airlines have abandoned printed manuals and
| paperwork in cockpits and have switched to tablets - often
| iPads - for weight considerations and because they are
| easier to just keep updated, and those are usually non-
| accessible to random passengers. Notable exception are
| emergency checklists.
| kenrik wrote:
| All planes are required to have the original POH onboard.
| However those don't really tell you how to fly the plane
| it's more focused on things like Vspeeds minimum flap
| extension speeds etc..
| sokoloff wrote:
| That varies based on the certification rules. My older
| 182 only had to have the operating limitations and weight
| and balance info ("O+W" in ARROW), but they did not have
| to be original.
|
| My later year A36, I believe needs the original AFM/POH.
| (In any case, I do carry it.)
|
| If you didn't know how to fly, you couldn't read enough
| of the book to figure it out before the aircraft departed
| controlled flight (if not on at least a wing-leveler
| autopilot).
| kenrik wrote:
| I'm also an owner of an older 182 (1966 - 182K) I agree
| with you the POH won't really teach someone enough about
| the aircraft to fly it let alone operate the radios.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| I have zero experience flying planes (or being near people
| flying them), but I do have ham radio experience. Sounds like
| that might actually help a lot. I've even spent some time
| listening to the ~120 MHz AM aviation bands.
| dominotw wrote:
| He was also so calm. Making me think he knew there was a way
| out if got some help.
| hgomersall wrote:
| Genuine question, is my experience playing Microsoft flight
| simulator any use in being able to answer those questions,
| because it certainly feels like I can say something sensible
| about them.
| runjake wrote:
| FWIW, I grew up playing 80s/90s flight sims and later went
| into the military and worked on planes and got the
| opportunity to use military flight simulators and was able
| to make my way around the cockpit and takeoff/land pretty
| much immediately.
|
| I think my key for landing was learning flaps and throttle
| and getting a feel for stall speeds in sims.
|
| Now, would I want to test that in an actual plane in a life
| and death emergency? Not really. But I'd wager my odds are
| good.
| kenrik wrote:
| Pilot here: It could help with some familiarity but
| generally in MSFS you can get away with ignoring the gauges
| and just mess around. The tutorial might gloss over some of
| it.
|
| Having an unbelievable number of hours in MSFS when I was a
| kid ... landing a real plane is considerably harder and a
| ton of instruction time is just focused on getting you to
| land reliably. I finished my PPL in just over 40hrs which
| is close to the minimum. Most people will fall into the
| 60-100hr pool.
|
| I'm dubious that this passenger really had zero experience
| it takes a good 6-10hrs to get decent at landing (as in not
| bending metal).
|
| MSFS does however offer a reasonable feeling for the cruise
| portion of a flight.
| verst wrote:
| Also pilot here (C172 G1000): I personally find landing a
| plane IRL easier than in MSFS. Much easier when I am able
| to feel resistance on the yoke, feel shifts in wind and
| gravity etc. All the MSFS controls are so extremely
| touchy. Though I agree you need 6-10 hours to get decent
| at landings :)
| chronogram wrote:
| Both your comments were "dead", you could maybe mail HN
| to have your account set to not be shadow banned.
| mbostleman wrote:
| How did you know that?
| james-skemp wrote:
| You can toggle 'showdead' if you're logged in on your
| user page.
|
| That shows dead comments with a color and text indicator
| when enabled.
| robaato wrote:
| As a teenage air cadet in the 1970's in northern
| Scotland, I learned to fly in open cockpit gliders and
| effectively went from scratch to first solo flights in a
| long weekend (January!) - within a few hours...
|
| This seems familiar - I remember flying with mitten
| gloves (due to cold!), controls were joystick, rudder,
| flaps, and an altimeter:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slingsby_T.21
| [deleted]
| dctoedt wrote:
| Years ago I read that a student pilot at Pensacola (basic
| flight training for the Navy and Marine Corps) qualified
| much faster because he played a lot of Microsoft Flight
| Simulator, to the point that the Navy was going to get
| multiple copies.
|
| FOUND IT: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-
| xpm-1999-05-03-99050300...
| TomVDB wrote:
| Yes, it would be very helpful.
|
| My instructor encouraged me to buy MS FS, pedals and a
| yoke.
| picsao wrote:
| cryptonector wrote:
| Where's the audio? TFA has very little of it.
| medion wrote:
| None of these observations seem impossible for someone who is
| able to maintain low stress levels, think rationally and
| understand the overall general mechanics of how planes fly
| and what is important - altitude, speed, etc.
| water-your-self wrote:
| It was a cessna with two passengers. I would assume that the
| passenger at minimum has a pilot/ flight enthusiast in their
| life.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| > I would assume that the passenger at minimum has a pilot/
| flight enthusiast in their life.
|
| Or mostly uninterested spouse.
| Macha wrote:
| They're in a cessna, with one other person piloting. I think
| spending a significant time around aviation is a given, but I
| also wouldn't call that flying experience.
|
| It's not like being in the cabin in a commercial airliner,
| you'd see the pilot doing these things, and honestly as far
| as plane interfaces go, the Cessna is not bad.
|
| https://external-
| content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F...
|
| Here's the instrument panel. While I wouldn't say every
| untrained person can just "figure it out", I think there are
| a decent number who would at least be able to get an
| altitude, heading, and vertical speed reading out of that.
| Especially if you'd spent some time in the last 30 minutes
| looking at them while your pilot friend is focused on flying.
|
| I've spent a signficant amount of time flying cessnas in MS
| flight sim and XPlane, but I wouldn't assume that would
| automatically carry over if I ended up in a situation like
| that, and I certainly would err on the side of caution and
| risk ATC thinking I had less knowledge than risk overstating
| it and risk something going wrong because they end up
| thinking I'd be confident performing an ILS approach or
| something.
| vonseel wrote:
| The dials are in the middle and literally labeled altitude,
| airspeed in knots, etc. Not a great point from the Reddit
| armchair scientists but the guy who landed the plane
| obviously holds up well in stressful situations.
| mcculley wrote:
| I have flown enough as a passenger with a single pilot to
| know some of those things. While I have held the wheel a bit,
| I have no formal training and no experience taking off or
| landing. If I were in the same situation, I would tell ATC,
| "I have no idea what I am doing" to err on the more useful
| end of expectations for assistance.
| ddingus wrote:
| Bingo. As would I. And with no real flight experience, I
| believe it is accurate to say.
|
| Having seen some stuff is a far cry from knowing things.
| adventured wrote:
| From another article:
|
| "Morgan [controller] learned the passenger on the line had
| never flown a plane -- but had been around aviation and seen
| other pilots fly."
| efitz wrote:
| I have 30 minutes and 2 touch-and-go's in my log book. I suck
| at Microsoft Flight Simulator.
|
| In 30 minutes of the instructor sitting next to me, I
| successfully landed and took off in a Cessna 172, learned to
| trim power, elevators and flaps, learned how to transmit and
| how to "squawk ident", and what channel to use in emergencies
| (1202 IIRC).
|
| Operating the airplane was very straightforward. Without the
| instructor or someone talking to me, I would not have known
| what to do when, but I can completely see how someone
| reasonably smart, calm, and able to follow directions could
| land such an airplane in good conditions.
| e-clinton wrote:
| Flying is easy as long as weather is on your side. But
| still impressive for a total noob to land safely
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| Also don't forget gas.
| a-dub wrote:
| 1200 is null as i understand i think 7200 is emergency?
|
| as a curious stem type who used to fly with other curious
| stem types back in the day, i remember asking for all the
| details and being given them.
|
| edit: 12xx is vfr no code assigned with various modifiers.
| 7700 declare emergency. 7600 radio out. 7500 mutiny.
| hodlfnejsns wrote:
| 1200 is VFR. That doesn't mean null. 7500, 7600, and 7700
| are used for various emergency purposes. These are
| transponder codes, not radio channels. It's a code
| returned when the transponder is painted with
| interrogative radar.
| hodlfnejsnsz wrote:
| 1200 is VFR, which generally means "I'm flying visually
| and don't need ATC help". If you're squawked 1200 you
| show up as VFR on their screen, but you still show up.
| That doesn't mean null. 7500, 7600, and 7700 are used for
| various emergency purposes, with 7700 being the most
| common, and almost always accompanying a mayday or
| panpan. Those are transponder codes, not radio channels.
| It's a code returned by your equipment when the
| transponder is painted with interrogative radar.
|
| 0000 is closer to "null", but still isn't quite. 1000
| also has some "null" like properties when it comes to
| ADS-B. Note that what I'm saying is North American
| centric and not necessarily ICAO nor other areas, which
| can differ somewhat.
| a-dub wrote:
| never ceases to amaze:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transponder_codes
| antmldr wrote:
| If you mean voice communication channel for emergencies,
| it's 121.5 MHz, 243.00 MHz for Military (double)
| ddingus wrote:
| Could have been a gamer
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Raises hand: yeah, every flight-sim gamer's fantasy.
| ddingus wrote:
| Right?
| AtNightWeCode wrote:
| I think most people would be screwed cause there seems to a
| lot of different ways to get the radio to work in the first
| place. At least for larger planes.
| neverminder wrote:
| I'm not a pilot, but isn't this plane like the easiest to pilot
| and thus land for someone inexperienced? If this was a jet, the
| passenger in question would probably be pretty screwed?
| enw wrote:
| > Air traffic controllers are not necessarily pilots, but
| luckily, this one was a pilot and certified instructor.
|
| Source? The article itself is quite short.
| ashtonbaker wrote:
| wapo article quotes this from the liveatc recording
| the_af wrote:
| It is mentioned (speculated about, actually) in the ATC radio
| chatter, see here near the 4:50 mark:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MDwzNtDMlA
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| I'm not overly surprised for two reasons:
|
| 1) This was a single engine plane w/out constant speed prop. So
| really the only things to worry about would be throttle, flight
| controls (maybe trim), and mixture. 2) Looks like it was a
| steam gauge plane so luckily the student didn't have to learn a
| fugly glass panel UI 3) The stall speed on these planes is
| pretty low, so ATC probably had them do a pattern to get used
| to the distances and then come in a bit hot for the actual
| landing. Coming in a bit hot in a cessna like that just results
| in landing deep or a rough landing when you pull the power vs.
| stalling and crashing (which is much more likely if the PIC
| tried to do 60 knots on final). If they roll past the end of
| the runway a bit it'll damage the plane but at least they're on
| the ground. 4) The landing gear on those planes is really
| strong. You can botch the landing and the plane will be fine.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| A lot of people in aviation wind up being instructors to rack
| up flight hours early in their careers. An ATC, A&P mechanic, a
| charter pilot or any other aviation professional that would
| have probably had some commercial flying time earlier in their
| career being an instructor isn't a given but it's also not
| surprising at all. The fact that they were able to verbalize
| stuff sufficiently well for the person at the controls to do
| the right thing is the more impressive part.
| loup-vaillant wrote:
| Pilot _student_ here. I'm not floored at all, for two reasons:
| my own experience, and selection bias.
|
| I once maintained level on a Cessna equivalent with zero
| training besides video games (I loved flight simulators back in
| the late 90s), and a tiny bit of model flying (I flew little
| and crashed a lot). Maintaining altitude wasn't trivial, but
| maintaining level was dead easy. I'm sure I could have managed
| a very slight bank turn safely. Now landing... some years later
| I got 5 hours of gliding. My first landing went well enough
| that the instructor didn't have to take control. If my
| instructor got sick instead, I would give my former self 30%
| chance of avoiding injury or death. 75% if a trained instructor
| with a similar glider could tail me and observe me more closely
| (and I think there were). Never ever gonna risk such folly of
| course, but I wouldn't have been doomed either.
|
| Then there's selection bias: we hear of this because it _is_ a
| feat. No question about that. Now let's not forget about all
| the people that tried this and died. For those we'll only hear
| of the pilot getting sick and the plane crashing. Or just the
| plane crashing. Those make for less impressive headlines.
| eachro wrote:
| I think doing this under pressure is what's most impressive.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| Passenger who got to hold the stick for a bit. _Flying_ the
| plane is easy. Flying it roughly at some altitude in a rough
| direction you 're given is also easy.
|
| Now, landing it? That's an entirely different beast for sure.
| freerobby wrote:
| Also pilot here, agreed.
|
| I suspect there is a little more to the story. On the LiveATC
| audio, he was giving descent rates and asking tower/approach
| for headings. Didn't speak like a pilot but seemed to know more
| than a layperson. Maybe some aviation exposure but no flight
| time? Whatever the case, very well done by both him and ATC.
| randall wrote:
| It seems reasonable that if someone is in a two person cessna
| they probably have some additional flight exposure, right? I
| wouldn't know anything about most of that stuff... but I
| could probably figure out some of it in the moment just
| because of my technical bent. A lot of my founder friends are
| pilots, and were able to adapt pretty quickly... so maybe
| it's one of those things?
| aksss wrote:
| We're all ignoring the possibility that the pilot gave him
| the, "Now if I become incapacitated," speech before taking
| off.
| jayofdoom wrote:
| The handful of times I've been up with private pilots who
| took me in their cessna, I did get an if I become
| incapacitated speech where they showed me how to operate
| the radios how to squawk 7700 and how to keep the plane
| level before we even took off.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I've given my wife the basic heading, airspeed, trim,
| radio comms briefing and experience. (And also given my
| older kid the same experience but just for fun.)
|
| If I kicked off in flight on day/good weather, and she
| was up front, I'm pretty sure that airplane would end up
| inside the airport perimeter, probably stopped on all
| three wheels on a runway. That's not to take anything
| away from this pax feat, but it's pretty likely they at
| least had a pretty good idea of how things work. (And
| were in a fairly simple airplane.)
| freerobby wrote:
| > It seems reasonable that if someone is in a two person
| cessna they probably have some additional flight exposure,
| right?
|
| I think that's true as you stated it, but this wasn't a
| little 150; it was a 208 (which seats up to 14). Very
| common to have non-aviation passengers in something like
| that. On the flip side, the fact that he was sitting front-
| right seat could be evidence he had some aviation
| background (e.g. as a pilot + aviation enthusiast, I would
| excitedly take that seat if it was an option).
| zapdrive wrote:
| Obama administration pushed Affirmative Action into ATC [0],
| lowering the scores required for "minorites". Candidates with
| maths and science background are actually being penalized to
| increase "diversity".
|
| 0 https://www.wsj.com/articles/affirmative-action-lands-in-
| the...
| DontMindit wrote:
| The white middle class will be lucky to survive another
| decade or two in America. The baby boomer die off is about to
| begin. Will all of these anti white policies be reversed when
| they are then the minority I wonder? I doubt it. Its going to
| get real bad real fast for whites.
| eins1234 wrote:
| > Pilot here.
|
| For a second, I thought you were the pilot from the article
| that was incapacitated haha...
| rosnd wrote:
| brightball wrote:
| I heard the story on the radio this morning and they said that
| not only was the controller a certified instructor but he flew
| this specific plane so he knew how to direct him to everything
| on the panel! Really incredible bit of coincidence.
| albert_e wrote:
| On the contrary the CNN story [0] said the controller was NOT
| familiar with this specific plane so he got a print out of
| the dashboard of that model so that he can guide the "pilot"
| properly. There was also a picture.
|
| [0] https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/florida-passenger-
| lan...
| jt2190 wrote:
| Text-only: https://lite.cnn.com/en/article/h_058efe221cb8df
| f299fa7abcf3...
| ColinWright wrote:
| From one of the other submissions:
|
| _" Morgan had never flown this model Cessna. He pulled up a
| picture of the instrument panel's layout and started guiding
| his new student step-by-step."_
|
| Morgan was the ATC.
| 14 wrote:
| What do you consider flying experience? I, if given a chance
| would attempt to land a plane today and have no formal
| training. Mostly I would want to do it to prove some around me
| that is is possible. I did however play a million hours of
| pilot wings though that is hardly a flight simulator it is just
| to basic. I have dabbled slightly with Microsoft flight
| simulator but again just to fly around and play never took it
| seriously. I've always wanted to fly and honestly think I would
| land a plane. I don't think I would do everything correctly
| like a pilot but given a moderately sized runway think I could
| easily bring a plane down safely. I'm confident enough that if
| given the chance today I would go and try it. Maybe I am just
| crazy.
| TomVDB wrote:
| Frankly, I'm not super surprised? I had a few hours of flight
| instruction before I dropped out (it just didn't fascinate me),
| and what struck me was that you're doing a landing during the
| first lesson.
|
| As long as the landing strip is long enough, you can take
| things very slowly.
| ctvo wrote:
| This is a side of Florida Man we rarely hear about.
| mostertoaster wrote:
| This is just awesome.
| rvba wrote:
| More info
|
| http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2022/05/cessna-208-caravan-n33...
| cfield wrote:
| The landing was beautifully smooth -- an impressive feat by any
| measure.
|
| The best video of it I've seen so far is here:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2fQkJGbRcA
|
| Another perspective is at 1:24 of this video:
| https://youtu.be/k1n85oiLqUc?t=84
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-11 23:00 UTC)