[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)