Nearly 50% of men who have never flown or landed an airplane think they could safely land a passenger airplane

[y_p_w]

To me, that would also include private jets of various sizes, which are also, at least in my mind "passenger planes".

I have VERY limited flight experience. I've flown (but not landed, though I've watched it land many times and what was done) a Cirrus single engine prop plane and been in the co-pilot seat for many hours in a Citation Mustang small twin-engined jet, which I've also flown, but not landed (with our pilot in the other seat of course). Both of these are pretty simple planes to fly, both had glass cockpits and the Cirrus has a "joystick" sort of arrangement.

With these planes there are "prompts" about things like speed based on altitude and angle of approach that guide you. I'm not sure if that's the case for large commercial craft or not because I've never been in the cockpit of one but I think that's something to keep in mind when we are having these discussions that there are various levels of automation and prompting depending on the type of plane and its cockpit configuration.

I remember flying once one Southwest (maybe 2012) where I saw the cockpit door open and saw tons of dials everywhere. Must have been one of the oldest planes in their fleet and about ready to be retired. I'm wondering what help a pilot in the back who had only flown with glass cockpits would have been. I understand that handling the yoke is probably the easiest part.

 

[srfdude]

...

Anecdotally, a few years later, I had heard that none of the Fleet Captains wanted a new hire navy fighter guy on their fleet, except for one, a guy named Bill Dias, who had been an Air Force fighter pilot.

So, I guess I was a bit of a hot potato, getting passed around from Fleet to Fleet during staff meetings, but Bill was willing to take a chance on me. “I can teach a fighter guy to fly anything” he was reported to have said.

I have a couple thousand hours, flying Alaska bush. As a navy fighter pilot I assume you are carrier rated. Absolute kudos to you folks!

 

[Malo83]

IT'S HARD, during my time in Naval Air, working on UH-1N Hueys and SH-3G Sea Kings, would often go up on the check flights after some major maintenance, after all the checks were done on the way back have sat in the co-pilots seat and tried flying the helos, there is no way I could fly that thing home, couldn't keep her level or straight, did a lot of porpoising and yawing.

 

[andrew_j]

Never said my job is the hardest. You’re the one, who hasn’t flown an airliner, who is getting bent out of shape, here.

But to think you can do my job without any training is the height of arrogance.

A breathtaking insult to those in the profession.

I’ve given simulator tours many, many times in 26 years. Most of them to zero time, non pilots.

I’ve got data, experience, on this exact scenario.

You don’t.

Please , some and close this thread . I like all of you too but not this.

 

[OVERKILL]

I remember flying once one Southwest (maybe 2012) where I saw the cockpit door open and saw tons of dials everywhere. Must have been one of the oldest planes in their fleet and about ready to be retired. I'm wondering what help a pilot in the back who had only flown with glass cockpits would have been. I understand that handling the yoke is probably the easiest part.

We've had five different planes at work (the owner of the company loves planes and is rated to fly the jets we own) and many years ago before he got into jets, we bought an old Kingair twin (can't remember the model off the top of my head, think it seated 11?) and it was I think mid 80's vintage, totally analog everything. I had only been in a Cirrus at that point, and WOW, that was like a whole different world

This is the Mustang cockpit:

Here's the Cirrus SR22:

These are almost identical to the ones I've been handed the controls to and allowed to fly (with our pilot in the other seat). Nowhere near the level of complication as the other craft being discussed here. Heck, the Cirrus even has a chute! lol.

 

[y_p_w]

We've had five different planes at work (the owner of the company loves planes and is rated to fly the jets we own) and many years ago before he got into jets, we bought an old Kingair twin (can't remember the model off the top of my head, think it seated 11?) and it was I think mid 80's vintage, totally analog everything. I had only been in a Cirrus at that point, and WOW, that was like a whole different world

This is the Mustang cockpit:

Here's the Cirrus SR22:

These are almost identical to the ones I've been handed the controls to and allowed to fly (with our pilot in the other seat). Nowhere near the level of complication as the other craft being discussed here. Heck, the Cirrus even has a chute! lol.

I toured a KC-10 at the 2014 Thunder over Solano air show at Travis AFB. It was really weird, since it was both a tanker and transport. I ended up sitting in the boom operator's seat, but my wife and kid posed for a photo with a pilot where they sat in the pilot and co-pilot seats. But man that was just analog dials everywhere. I was also thinking that the plane could have been older than the Major (looked to be maybe 30ish who posed. Also - when we were waiting to get in the cockpit, someone (claimed to be a flight attendant) said their coffeemaker was just a commercial unit that she's used before in a DC-10.

 

[OVERKILL]

I toured a KC-10 at the 2014 Thunder over Solano air show at Travis AFB. It was really weird, since it was both a tanker and transport. I ended up sitting in the boom operator's seat, but my wife and kid posed for a photo with a pilot where they sat in the pilot and co-pilot seats. But man that was just analog dials everywhere. I was also thinking that the plane could have been older than the Major (looked to be maybe 30ish who posed. Also - when we were waiting to get in the cockpit, someone (claimed to be a flight attendant) said their coffeemaker was just a commercial unit that she's used before in a DC-10.

Here's a King Air 350, this is similar to what I saw, but without any digital stuff, lol:

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

If Kurt Russell can do it, I can do it.

I remember flying once one Southwest (maybe 2012) where I saw the cockpit door open and saw tons of dials everywhere. Must have been one of the oldest planes in their fleet and about ready to be retired. I'm wondering what help a pilot in the back who had only flown with glass cockpits would have been. I understand that handling the yoke is probably the easiest part.

They would figure it out.

You don't forget that kind of stuff.

 

[y_p_w]

They would figure it out.

You don't forget that kind of stuff.

Really? Would someone trained in glass cockpits only be able to figure it out in a pinch? I was thinking they might never had had any training in anything like that.

I have heard of military pilots who moved around a bit and transitioned to a T-38A as an aggressor in the reserves. That's got to be one heck of a shock at first.

But in the end, I don't think the discussion is necessarily that someone with a reasonable ability to learn could spend months in a simulator and be reasonably competent at landing a plane with help. Isn't that what flight schools do? But hasn't the discussion been about even experienced pilots getting in a simulator for a new aircraft type and "crashing"? Everyone has to start somewhere, but going from no experience to trying to land an airliner with help seems rather unrealistic.

 

[LDB]

Without having additional information one would try to find the radios and tune to 121.5?

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Really? Would someone trained in glass cockpits only be able to figure it out in a pinch? I was thinking they might never had had any training in anything like that.

I have heard of military pilots who moved around a bit and transitioned to a T-38A as an aggressor in the reserves. That's got to be one heck of a shock at first.

But in the end, I don't think the discussion is necessarily that someone with a reasonable ability to learn could spend months in a simulator and be reasonably competent at landing a plane with help. Isn't that what flight schools do? But hasn't the discussion been about even experienced pilots getting in a simulator for a new aircraft type and "crashing"? Everyone has to start somewhere, but going from no experience to trying to land an airliner with help seems rather unrealistic.

Yes, really.

Do you really think a “ pilot sitting in the back“ would not be able to figure out the analogue instruments on a B737 just because they only flew glass before?

If I was on board an old, analogue, B737 and both pilots were incapacitated, I would ID myself as an airline pilot, enter the cockpit, assess what the plane was doing ( level, climbing, descending ) and look to confirm the AP was on. I would check how much fuel there is and how much is left ( time …fuel flow ). I would figure out the radios ( cell phone work too, possibly ) , advise ATC through 121.5. After that, I would find out how to select heading mode ( not familiar with FMS ) and start heading for a large airport. While flying to the airport, I would try and find out how to turn off the AP and put it back on for practice ( manual landing later ). I would check to see what the weight is and try and figure out the landing speed ( Vref tables in the flight deck or some other way ) and look at the panel for the placarded flap speeds. I would start descent earlier than normal ( normally altitude times 3 ) and play around with the thrust levers to see how they work in manual thrust. Manual brakes are manual brakes but I would look for the auto brake selector and use it. Arming the spoilers ( kills lift on landing ) …..I would extend them on landing if unsure how to arm in flight ( Airbus ….they auto deploy when select reverser even if forget to arm in landing check ….that’s why ALWAYS select at least idle thrust landing ). At some point , I would look for a pre descent checklist and landing checklist to see if I missed something.

Thats assuming the weather is good and I don’t need any IFR instruments to land.

If it was cloudy all the way down, any pilot could read those steam gauges but would have to figure out how to arm the ILS ( all big airports have ILS ) or get ATC to get me down to the lowest safe altitude and fly visual from there.

What other choice would I have?

Tell the FA’s , sorry, I have never flown glass before or it’s been a long time?

 

[wings&wheels]

We've had five different planes at work (the owner of the company loves planes and is rated to fly the jets we own) and many years ago before he got into jets, we bought an old Kingair twin (can't remember the model off the top of my head, think it seated 11?) and it was I think mid 80's vintage, totally analog everything. I had only been in a Cirrus at that point, and WOW, that was like a whole different world

B200? That was the plane at the time if you weren't up for turbines yet. Step up from that recip Navajo!

 

[OVERKILL]

B200? That was the plane at the time if you weren't up for turbines yet. Step up from that recip Navajo!

Yeah, I think so, lol. Then jet time happened. The Navajo was a freakin' weapon! LOL!

 

[Owen Lucas]

I had a chance to fly a Dassault Falcon 7x in an hydraulic actuated pilot training flight simulator. The simulator is like 2 stories tall.

My buddy who was in charge of IT at a flight sim center let me in at night for some “training”.

I had no clue how to start the plane and was surprised by the amount of switches and knobs that needed to be set to get the plane going.

Taking off was easy, practically did it by itself. Once in the air flying was easy as well. The Falcon really doesn’t like acrobatics and would fight back if you tried to do a nose dive or a loop or fly inverted.

I overpowered these nanny features and went inverted then tried to do an underside loop if you can call it that. All kinds of alarms blaring with warnings of structural damage. I have the video somewhere.

Buddy reset the sim and then we flew under the Veranzano bridge and near the Statue of Liberty.

Reset the system again for approach to JFK, landed a little rough but IIRC we used some kind of automatic landing feature and I had my friend guiding me the whole time.

Final sim reset, time for my buddy to give me an experience I’ll never forget.

On approach to JFK the baggage compartment and engines were set on fire along with making the instrument panel go dark and finally killing power to the plane. Lots of alarms and warning lights before.

He deploys some kind of auxiliary power generator called a “RAT” which is a motor and propellor mounted on an arm that comes out of the plane and allows us to regain instrumentation.

We still have no engines but the plane was positioned in the sim where it was technically possible to coast to the runway. I was sweating a little by this point, pulled up too much on the joy stick and went right into the bay short of the runway by quite a long ways.

I’m glad he didn’t put me into the helicopter simulator!

 

[billt460]

Please , some and close this thread. I like all of you too but not this.

Why do you want the thread closed? If you find that it's too tough on your feelings, simply don't read it and move on. There are plenty of kinder, more gentle threads on this board.

 

[bbhero]

Well something like 65%-70% of Americans think they are smarter than average, so there is that. Then there are studies that have shown that people with lower intelligence have a much higher overconfidence of their actual abilities or knowledge, even if they have no experience on a subject or a task. The opposite is usually true for people with high intelligence. Their confidence is pretty high in areas they are experts in, but once they step out of these, their confidence drops.

So that 50% of men that said they could land a jet liner safely, their intelligence is most likely nowhere near where they think it is.

Like Clint Eastwood said in a movie…

Every man has got to know his limitations…




I’ll equate this to sports as I typically do..


One night my good friend ( God rest his soul ) Scott we’re playing volleyball at the gym. Put other friends had left and these 4 guys came in and wanted to play… Scott says to me.. I don’t want to play with these idiots… And I said yeah I don’t either. He said why don’t you and me play those 4 guys and let’s just beat the hell out of them. I laughed and said hellyeah !!

So he went and told those guys that and you could tell they were a bit incredulous… Well that disappeared quite quickly after my friend Scott and I started mopping the floor up with them…. EASILY…. 2 against 4 and we were beating the brakes off those 4 guys…

Why ???

Because we had that much talent, skill and experience vs 4 guys of whom had hardly no experience or skills.

And like I said when I played basketball and it fits with this whole thread …

It’s easy to talk number2 from the sidelines…

 

[Nmr1981]

What if I watched the movie airplane right before

 

[bbhero]

I think this is a great interview question that I'll pose to the next candidate I interview. The follow up asking why they answered yes or no would also be very telling.

Seriously ^^^^^

A great insight...

My answer to you or anyone else for that matter...


Ahh no I don't think for a second I could do that... Safely and without crashing ...

Or if I was being humorous I'd say ... Yeah I could fly it right up until the scene of the crash ..

You have to know your limitations. Knowing your limitations and understanding the true experience, skill and talent that I don't have is key to avoiding setting up a very bad circumstance.

 

[billt460]

Since "glass cockpits" have come into vogue on most newer aircraft. Has there been any statistics compiled, as to the failure rate of analog instruments vs. glass screen, multi functional panels going dark for whatever reason?

For example take the artificial horizon. Most of the larger, older analog cockpits had as many as 3. (Left seat, right seat, and usually a third smaller unit located somewhere in the middle of the instrument panel). That all worked independently off of different gyros.

So there was quite a bit of comparable redundancy if one of them looked to be "off". As opposed to these big, multi functional flat screen monitors. Where if the monitor goes, you lose everything.

I once read an article that stated crashes occurred more frequently because of pilots not trusting their artificial horizons, and succumbing to spatial disorientation, then there were caused by outright failure of the actual instrument itself. (The JFK Jr. crash among the most notable).

 

[tbm5690]

Since "glass cockpits" have come into vogue on most newer aircraft. Has there been any statistics compiled, as to the failure rate of analog instruments vs. glass screen, multi functional panels going dark for whatever reason?

For example take the artificial horizon. Most of the larger, older analog cockpits had as many as 3. (Left seat, right seat, and usually a third smaller unit located somewhere in the middle of the instrument panel). That all worked independently off of different gyros.

So there was quite a bit of comparable redundancy if one of them looked to be "off". As opposed to these big, multi functional flat screen monitors. Where if the monitor goes, you lose everything.

I once read an article that stated crashes occurred more frequently because of pilots not trusting their artificial horizons, and succumbing to spatial disorientation, then there were caused by outright failure of the actual instrument itself. (The JFK Jr. crash among the most notable).

The redundancy is still there with multiple AHRS units providing attitude information separately to both sides and the standby. Screen failures are uncommon but once again if it's the display itself there are multiple units with reversionary functions to still see all of the applicable info elsewhere.