Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:41 From: felton@Princeton.EDU (Phil. G. Felton) Organization: Princeton University References: 1 2 3 4
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1998.1898@ohare.Chicago.COM>, Larry Stone <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > On 12/23/98 3:52 AM, JF Mezei (email@example.com) said: > >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 ? > > Have to? No. Most do but there's no requirement to do so. I know an > airline pilot who does not have a single-engine rating, only multi-engine > (note though that he was a military pilot and when he converted, only > qualified for multi - I do not know if he had any single-engine > experience or not). > > >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 ? No, flying by the seat of your pants in IMC will gat you dead in a hurry! You are trained not to do that even in a Cessna. What you have to do is recognize that your instruments are not working correctly (not that easy without external reference), identify the problem and take the appropriate action. In the case in question switch to the alternate static source. In ground school you are presented with various scenarios but how often does a pilot see a real failed static source? Phil.