Live data from Hacker News

Passenger with “no idea how to fly” lands plane after pilot incapacitated

cbsnews.com

371–380 of 491 posts

Re: Passenger with “no idea how to fly” lands plane after pilot incapacitated

#371
post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!

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.

> 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.

Re: Passenger with “no idea how to fly” lands plane after pilot incapacitated

#372

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!

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.

Re: Passenger with “no idea how to fly” lands plane after pilot incapacitated

#373

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 a…

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.

Re: Passenger with “no idea how to fly” lands plane after pilot incapacitated

#374
post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 alti…

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 s…

Flying is easy as long as weather is on your side. But still impressive for a total noob to land safely

Re: Passenger with “no idea how to fly” lands plane after pilot incapacitated

#375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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).

If you’ve left enough room, you’re not part of the pile up. Kind of by definition…

Re: Passenger with “no idea how to fly” lands plane after pilot incapacitated

#377
post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 alti…

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 pa…

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.

Re: Passenger with “no idea how to fly” lands plane after pilot incapacitated

#378
post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Flying is easy as long as weather is on your side. But still impressive for a total noob to land safely

Also don't forget gas.

Re: Passenger with “no idea how to fly” lands plane after pilot incapacitated

#379
post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fa…

>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 h…

> 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.
Post reply on HN