Passenger Lands King Air
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Framer, I'm sure of it because it's not specific to aviation; it's part of the principles that govern learning and using skills. It applies to all sorts of things in everyday life, not just flying airplanes.
In the case under discussion, the only skills requires to fly and land the aircraft using automation are those that virtually everyone has already acquired at some point in time: namely, the ability to push buttons, manipulate dials, and follow a set of instructions provided by someone else. We are all able to do these things, and they are all that is required to fly and land a heavily automated aircraft today.
The difficult part of flying (and of operating other vehicles) is controlling the aircraft via the traditional flight controls. Without considerable practice, the average person is unlikely to be successful at doing this, particularly under pressure. This aspect of flying requires practice and judgement. However—and this is the important part that people routinely overlook—these skills that are so difficult to acquire are _not needed_ when an aircraft is sufficiently automated. In fact, the flight controls need never be touched at all.
The notion that a non-pilot could not land an airliner is based on many precarious assumptions that are increasingly incorrect as technology advances. When an airliner has a flight management system fully programmed to carry out the flight, virtually no human intervention is required, and certainly no movement of the flight controls is required (that's the whole idea, after all). When the aircraft is configured for autoland, no intervention with the flight controls is required for landing, either. The only thing that pilots need to do is press buttons, move a few levers, and turn some dials—and these are things that anyone can do. Of course, they must know which buttons to push and which dials to turn, but that isn't necessary if instructions can be provided from the ground. With instructions, only extremely simple skills that everyone already has are necessary to achieve a successful outcome.
I'm sure that this hurts the pride of many pilots, but it need not do so. Non-pilots cannot land airliners by hand, by manipulating the flight controls, and if that were actually necessary to land, an attempt by a non-pilot would most likely end in disaster. But the reality is that flying by hand is no longer necessary, thanks to automation, and the part that is necessary can be carried out by anyone … a pilot's skills are not required.
This trend will continue in the future. The purpose of the pilots will be (and already is, to some extent) to serve as back-up for unforeseen circumstances that the automation cannot handle. Human beings are much better at handling the unexpected. But for normal flight, the pilots will just be attendants, watching the computer do all the work. Eventually, if computers become reliable enough, the pilots might be eliminated, but I don't expect that any time soon (and I personally don't trust human-written software enough to take that risk).
A problem that arises with this, apart from the bruised egos of pilots who incorrectly believe that their own skills are being diminished, is that even qualified pilots will gradually forget how to fly the aircraft, unless they are constantly drilled on doing so in simulators. This is already a problem, although it's less of a problem than aviation was when there was no automation and pilots made mistakes through fatigue.
None of this was invented by the aviation industry, and none of this is specific to aviation. Thus, one need not be an airline pilot to be in a position to speak intelligently on the subject.
The irony here is that a non-pilot might be able to land a 747, but he would almost certainly end up dead or gravely injured if he tried to land a small aircraft with no automation, even if he received very detailed instructions over the radio. I seem to recall, though, that there have been cases even here where non-pilots have stolen aircraft and flown them around a bit and landed without killing themselves. It's a bit like a small child who attempts to drive off in a car and somehow survives the experience, even with no training in driving.
In the case under discussion, the only skills requires to fly and land the aircraft using automation are those that virtually everyone has already acquired at some point in time: namely, the ability to push buttons, manipulate dials, and follow a set of instructions provided by someone else. We are all able to do these things, and they are all that is required to fly and land a heavily automated aircraft today.
The difficult part of flying (and of operating other vehicles) is controlling the aircraft via the traditional flight controls. Without considerable practice, the average person is unlikely to be successful at doing this, particularly under pressure. This aspect of flying requires practice and judgement. However—and this is the important part that people routinely overlook—these skills that are so difficult to acquire are _not needed_ when an aircraft is sufficiently automated. In fact, the flight controls need never be touched at all.
The notion that a non-pilot could not land an airliner is based on many precarious assumptions that are increasingly incorrect as technology advances. When an airliner has a flight management system fully programmed to carry out the flight, virtually no human intervention is required, and certainly no movement of the flight controls is required (that's the whole idea, after all). When the aircraft is configured for autoland, no intervention with the flight controls is required for landing, either. The only thing that pilots need to do is press buttons, move a few levers, and turn some dials—and these are things that anyone can do. Of course, they must know which buttons to push and which dials to turn, but that isn't necessary if instructions can be provided from the ground. With instructions, only extremely simple skills that everyone already has are necessary to achieve a successful outcome.
I'm sure that this hurts the pride of many pilots, but it need not do so. Non-pilots cannot land airliners by hand, by manipulating the flight controls, and if that were actually necessary to land, an attempt by a non-pilot would most likely end in disaster. But the reality is that flying by hand is no longer necessary, thanks to automation, and the part that is necessary can be carried out by anyone … a pilot's skills are not required.
This trend will continue in the future. The purpose of the pilots will be (and already is, to some extent) to serve as back-up for unforeseen circumstances that the automation cannot handle. Human beings are much better at handling the unexpected. But for normal flight, the pilots will just be attendants, watching the computer do all the work. Eventually, if computers become reliable enough, the pilots might be eliminated, but I don't expect that any time soon (and I personally don't trust human-written software enough to take that risk).
A problem that arises with this, apart from the bruised egos of pilots who incorrectly believe that their own skills are being diminished, is that even qualified pilots will gradually forget how to fly the aircraft, unless they are constantly drilled on doing so in simulators. This is already a problem, although it's less of a problem than aviation was when there was no automation and pilots made mistakes through fatigue.
None of this was invented by the aviation industry, and none of this is specific to aviation. Thus, one need not be an airline pilot to be in a position to speak intelligently on the subject.
The irony here is that a non-pilot might be able to land a 747, but he would almost certainly end up dead or gravely injured if he tried to land a small aircraft with no automation, even if he received very detailed instructions over the radio. I seem to recall, though, that there have been cases even here where non-pilots have stolen aircraft and flown them around a bit and landed without killing themselves. It's a bit like a small child who attempts to drive off in a car and somehow survives the experience, even with no training in driving.
I'm sure of it because it's not specific to aviation; it's part of the principles that govern learning and using skills.
If your argument held true airliners would be piloted by extremely co-ordinated people and not much else would come into it. We could expect to see professional sports people retire from their game and step into the job and excell at it.(How do you reckon that would work out?) The fact is that most airline pilots are about average or a tad above average as far as co-ordination and physical manipulation goes. They are normally very skilled in other areas though.
You are obviously very interested in flying airliners and I see you have spent your fair share of time on the flight simulators, is that where you gain the confidence to speak as an authority on the matter?
Regards, Framer
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a non-flier, (at either end), I am particularly impressed by the ground controllers. It is clear that everything possible was done to make the job of flying the King Air as easy as possible for the untrained pilot. Even more impressive were the controllers in the Hudson River incident. To make a huge hole in the sky, in New York of all places, and arrange for the damaged A320 to land wherever the pilot wanted to, was an achievement of great skill. The sheer workload of guiding all the approaching aircraft away from the critical area and then getting them down without further drama, after the A320 was out of the way was as commendable as ditching the A320 with only one serious but not life threatening injury.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 84
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the basis of personal experience in a B737-200 simulator (the real thing, retired from airline service, not Mr Gates' toy) I believe that it is possible for somone with no previous practical experience to hand-fly a 737 to a safe landing. It's a little while ago, but as I remember, the instructor told me what the numbers should be and at the appropriate points selected flaps and undercarriage. I just handled the flight controls and throttles, mainly by reference to instruments. I ended up on the runway, at about the right point, and just about managed avoid the grass, although I came fairly close. On a second attemp I managed the vertical profile better, but put a wheel off the tarmac a few times before I stopped. The simulator didn't seem to think I had seriously broken anything!
So, given external assistance, and benign weather, it can be done. But i wouldn't want to have to do it for real.
So, given external assistance, and benign weather, it can be done. But i wouldn't want to have to do it for real.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: With all the other nuts
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AntonyGA, I'm not offended as your statements don't really make sense to anyone who does this job professionally. If you think that automation can presently cater for all of the potentially millions of variables in a flight, you're wrong - dead wrong.
Also, not all aircraft in the sky are airliners. Try losing the yaw dampener on a bizjet and see how well the auto-pilot works.
As for flight-simmers taking to the flight deck, even if you can land an aircraft without touching the control colomn/stick, you need to know howto use an auto-pilot. You also need to know the characteristics of your aircraft so that you can tell the controller if you can't achieve what he or she has asked you to do. Or you need someone to tell you what to do. Maybe a pilot could help you there.
Huh? Pilots incorrectly believe that their skills are diminishing but that's not true because they will forget how to fly the aircraft???!!!! Please explain.
So, dragging this back to topic, well done to the passanger!
Also, not all aircraft in the sky are airliners. Try losing the yaw dampener on a bizjet and see how well the auto-pilot works.
As for flight-simmers taking to the flight deck, even if you can land an aircraft without touching the control colomn/stick, you need to know howto use an auto-pilot. You also need to know the characteristics of your aircraft so that you can tell the controller if you can't achieve what he or she has asked you to do. Or you need someone to tell you what to do. Maybe a pilot could help you there.
A problem that arises with this, apart from the bruised egos of pilots who incorrectly believe that their own skills are being diminished, is that even qualified pilots will gradually forget how to fly the aircraft, unless they are constantly drilled on doing so in simulators.
So, dragging this back to topic, well done to the passanger!
AnthonyGA what you say for a/c *with* autoland* might be correct with a fair few caveats, it's completely irrelevent to Kingairs, the type involved in this incident. Kingairs don't have autoland!
At best they have autopilots that can capture & follow a heading (if you know what buttons to press. Someone is needed to try to direct your actions amongst a plethora of other buttons & switches - some of which will kill you), a nav route (if you know what buttons to press *and* how to set the nav equipment), a descent rate (ditto buttons), airspeed (hmm....buttons again. Is there a pattern here?) and altitude (oooh....there's the buttons thing again. Crap. There must be a pattern!)
Having resolved all the buttons & switches issues, arrived near the runway threshold at something like the correct speed, height & configuration someone still has to manually land the aircraft. Like riding a bike, it's not just a case of a neophyte hopping on & away you go. Learning any physical skill one needs to know what input is appropriate for the conditions to obtain a desired response *and* how that changes from moment to moment. Landing is a supreme example of that. Not only is the response of the aircraft changing for a given input from one moment to the next, so is the amount of input that is required. Even worse, the rate of change of those two variables is also changing. Making it even worse, environmental influences are also contributing to the variability of what input needs to be done when, how much and for how long. It's never the same from one moment to the next.
Now, having said all of that, it's certainly possible for a neophyte to land an aircraft in a manner with a high chance of survival with sufficient support able to explain what/where/when/how button or control input to make. I wouldn't necessarily expect the aircraft to be flyable immediately afterwards. I've lost count of the number of times as an instructor I've talked someone through a landing that, while it was not pretty, was within the aircraft limits. Of course I was sitting there telling them what to do from moment to moment and by how much in relation to what I could see. The person was really a voice activated remote control . That's still easier than a remote link by radio, based on the johnny-in-the-hot-seat's uneducated report about what's happening as & when s/he can talk - but I think do-able provided there aren't too many confounding factors to interfere.
Ideally there would be an instructor who is familiar with the aircraft & its equipment on the other end of the radio, calm weather in VMC, a very long & wide runway, no systems failures to add to the difficulty and sufficient endurance to give the hot seat time to become a little bit familiar with the control inputs vs. aircraft response.
At best they have autopilots that can capture & follow a heading (if you know what buttons to press. Someone is needed to try to direct your actions amongst a plethora of other buttons & switches - some of which will kill you), a nav route (if you know what buttons to press *and* how to set the nav equipment), a descent rate (ditto buttons), airspeed (hmm....buttons again. Is there a pattern here?) and altitude (oooh....there's the buttons thing again. Crap. There must be a pattern!)
Having resolved all the buttons & switches issues, arrived near the runway threshold at something like the correct speed, height & configuration someone still has to manually land the aircraft. Like riding a bike, it's not just a case of a neophyte hopping on & away you go. Learning any physical skill one needs to know what input is appropriate for the conditions to obtain a desired response *and* how that changes from moment to moment. Landing is a supreme example of that. Not only is the response of the aircraft changing for a given input from one moment to the next, so is the amount of input that is required. Even worse, the rate of change of those two variables is also changing. Making it even worse, environmental influences are also contributing to the variability of what input needs to be done when, how much and for how long. It's never the same from one moment to the next.
Now, having said all of that, it's certainly possible for a neophyte to land an aircraft in a manner with a high chance of survival with sufficient support able to explain what/where/when/how button or control input to make. I wouldn't necessarily expect the aircraft to be flyable immediately afterwards. I've lost count of the number of times as an instructor I've talked someone through a landing that, while it was not pretty, was within the aircraft limits. Of course I was sitting there telling them what to do from moment to moment and by how much in relation to what I could see. The person was really a voice activated remote control . That's still easier than a remote link by radio, based on the johnny-in-the-hot-seat's uneducated report about what's happening as & when s/he can talk - but I think do-able provided there aren't too many confounding factors to interfere.
Ideally there would be an instructor who is familiar with the aircraft & its equipment on the other end of the radio, calm weather in VMC, a very long & wide runway, no systems failures to add to the difficulty and sufficient endurance to give the hot seat time to become a little bit familiar with the control inputs vs. aircraft response.
sufficient endurance to give the hot seat time to become a little bit familiar with the control inputs vs. aircraft response.
A perhaps bigger piece is the perceptual experience in knowing how things should look in the landing approach. Having a pilot's license is a big piece of that.
Keeping your itchy fingers from the wrong switches in a complex a/c while using the necessary ones at the right altitude and airspeed is another piece and the help from the King Air instructor filled that knowledge gap.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fine job - Thanks for the MP3.
Mr White does a very crediitable job here. He aviates and communicates well. No rush and not too much stress (he is flying a complex twin for the first time with a body slumped next to him).
ATC are bang on the money. The approach controller should be awarded a medal for the calm measured, precise and utterly professional way he helps this guy in.
ATC are bang on the money. The approach controller should be awarded a medal for the calm measured, precise and utterly professional way he helps this guy in.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mars
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Don't all single engine pilots sitting down in a commerical flight think to themselves, "well, i bet i could fly this if something was to happen to the aircrew?"
Somehow I don't think so. Or that might be a thought by the minority of people. There are definitely ''it would be fun to fly this'' thoughts
Don't all single engine pilots sitting down in a commerical flight think to themselves, "well, i bet i could fly this if something was to happen to the aircrew?"
Somehow I don't think so. Or that might be a thought by the minority of people. There are definitely ''it would be fun to fly this'' thoughts
"if at first you don't succeed, hanggliding is not for you"
Don't all single engine pilots sitting down in a commerical flight think to themselves, "well, i bet i could fly this if something was to happen to the aircrew?"
I fly a Piper with some semblance of confidence. Every time I sit in a commercial flight I have that 'what if' moment but with crossed fingers that I won't have to try.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A pilot that owns a KingAir never bothered to fly it? Passenger lands airplane makes great headlines but I am sure he flew it prior to this incident. If he decided to not get his multi engine rating to fly it it was probably because he didn't qualify for insurance because he didn't have any multiengine time. If he could fly the approach speed properly I don't see any reason he couldn't land it safely. Most any plane in the world if you land on a long runway and hold 140 knots then hold it off until touchdown you are fine. It doesn't work in a J3 cub but would work in any multiengine plane.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Final with 3 greens.
It is clear from the ATC recording that he doesn't know the reference speeds or flap settings for approach and landing. He certainly was ahead of the plane in the sense that he was already thinking about VFE and flap settings well before he needed to be configured for the final approach. I suspect this guy has flown complex singles (variable pitch, cowl flaps, retractable undercarriage). Whatever the case he did a good job.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Dublin
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what its worth, at the risk of denting the egos of some seasoned aircrew, it IS possible for a lowly PPL holder to land a complex plane/airliner safely!
Way back in 1989 I obtained my PPL for single engined crates.I flew around for a few years, without any major incident/s, and then ran out of money (I got married), but not interest. Afterall I still had MS F/S to fall back on.
In 1995 or thereabouts I was allowed 30 mins in a 737 200 sim that was to be de-commisioned shortly thereafter. The sim op started the engines and lined it up at the threshold of RWY 28 EIDW. Without ANY input from him whatsover I then did two 6000 ft. left hand circuits, (one touch and go and then full stop). Maybe not fully compliant with SOP but did stay in one piece. The hardest thing I found was trying to taxi the bloody thing in a straight line!
So I KNOW that it is possible for this to be done without automation, but I also KNOW that to do it in a sim and to do it in real life are two totally different things.
Way back in 1989 I obtained my PPL for single engined crates.I flew around for a few years, without any major incident/s, and then ran out of money (I got married), but not interest. Afterall I still had MS F/S to fall back on.
In 1995 or thereabouts I was allowed 30 mins in a 737 200 sim that was to be de-commisioned shortly thereafter. The sim op started the engines and lined it up at the threshold of RWY 28 EIDW. Without ANY input from him whatsover I then did two 6000 ft. left hand circuits, (one touch and go and then full stop). Maybe not fully compliant with SOP but did stay in one piece. The hardest thing I found was trying to taxi the bloody thing in a straight line!
So I KNOW that it is possible for this to be done without automation, but I also KNOW that to do it in a sim and to do it in real life are two totally different things.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is clear from the ATC recording that he doesn't know the reference speeds or flap settings for approach and landing. He certainly was ahead of the plane in the sense that he was already thinking about VFE and flap settings well before he needed to be configured for the final approach. I suspect this guy has flown complex singles (variable pitch, cowl flaps, retractable undercarriage). Whatever the case he did a good job
White had logged about 150 hours recently flying a single-engine Cessna 172 but had no experience flying the faster, larger King Air.
I somehow knew that some folks would find the time for some simmer bashing in this thread.... First of all, kudos to Mr White, he's done a great job. As a Cessna 172 driver he certainly had the basic feel of flying, which undoubtedly helped him fly the King Air manually. Not an easy step. Maybe he got the taste of it now and will go for a full license on it. Still to keep the nerves and to do the job properly means he is a pretty cool customer.
As one who's done both, flying the real thing and using flight sims on a line of work, I would imagine that experience on MSFS additional to his real world flying might have helped him, not as a replacement for training but to get a general idea about some things he obviously had none. Such as Autopilot basics, what do they look like and how to switch them off, just to name the one bit he apparently did have problems with.
I made my licence in '83, before PC based flight sims. Flew pretty regularly until 2001 up to frozen ATPL, Multi and turboprop. Used sims before as entertainment and later to earn money. Came back to flying recently and hell, did my few thousand sim hours help me to come back to speed. I reckon, if I would not have kept "current" all the time due to my work with MSFS, it would take much longer and cost me much more to get back behind the yoke AND feel comfortable. Apart, in my long work in this business, I came across "flying" quite a few Level D devices including the MD11, 747, DC9, MD80 and more and I have to "bend" one yet (or force it into a hard reset).
I also notice that many here have never bothered to look behind the off the shelf MSFS. Time to take a closer look. There are sufficient addon products around which make this thing a very valuable training aid for those whith licenses or those wanting to aspire for one. Off the shelf, I agree, not a lot there, flying it with the keypad is difficult and pathetic. But with a reasonable setup, yoke, pedals and power unit as a minimum, addon scenery and so on, the thing can do a lot. Starting with airport familiarisation, VFR training (where high density photo scenery is available such as for the UK, Germany and Switzerland), even to have close looks at certain airplane specs and getting a first idea about them. I have talked to people transitioning onto the 744 or other aircraft for which high fidelity addons are available, who were more than happy to have a high fidelity model available to them to try things at home before sitting in the "real" sim. And yea, Tupolev Design Bureau use a MSFS based installation in their official type transition course. In the mean time, there are other FTD's and other professional devices based on MSFS.
If nothing else, MSFS, as it's cheap to use at home, may inspire many PPL's to aspire for more than their monthly circuit around the airport, to look beyond the fence of the local aeroclub and maybe to get that IR or CPL after all. It will help to keep skills alive during forced or volontary absence from the real thing, can help you to prepare for your checkrides and do other things. But like any sim, be it a full flight Level D device to a FNTP type or others, it is useless in the hands of gamers and without proper guidance by instructors worth their keep. And how much use it is depends on what the user makes out of it.
Best regards
AN2 Driver