Re: External inspection

Date:         17 Jan 99 02:37:36 
From: (Jeff Meeker)
Organization: posted via:, Dallas, TX (214) 343-3333/(817) 461-8484 for info
References:   1 2 3
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

On 23 Dec 98 03:52:41 , JF Mezei <> wrote:
>Karl Swartz wrote:
>> nuts.  It's also increasingly the case that flight crews are trained
>> in managing the automation, sacrificing basic systems knowledge, so
>> they aren't equipped to deal with what happens when those systems
>> fail you.
>Before someone gets to fly those fancy automated passenger planes,
>doesn't he/she *HAVE* to start with small planes such as CESSNAs and
>progress upwards as their experience/fliying hours increase ?

I gues they don't *HAVE* to, but many do.  If you learn to fly in the
civilian world, you will start with a simple, single engine plane,
very possibly a Cessna

>If that is the case, isn't flying "manual" somewhat like riding a bike,
>something you don't really forget ? So, when your instruments fail you
>on one of them fancy planes, shouldn't the pilots still be able to fly
>by the seat of their pants which is what they did when they started off
>on those small planes ?

Well, an airspeed indicator isn't a fancy indicator.  On an airliner,
it may be some fancy electronic display, but small planes will have
all the same basic flight instrucments.

When you start to fly, you don't just "fly by the seat of yor pants".
Flying small planes has the precision that large transport planes do.
You're still taught to climb out at certain airspeeds (Vx or Vy), and
are certainly taught to hit specific target airpeeds while on approach
to landing.

>Also just curious, if the airspeed indicator is inop, shouldn't the
>pilot still be able to get some idea of his speed through the INS/GPS
>systems which would provide ground speed ?

Again, GPS would provide a ground speed, and this isn't meaningful
during a takeoff roll.   Besides, it may not be accurate enough.  I
certainly would not rely on it.