Can we pilot a real 737 if we can

[BimmerCop 332]

 

It doesn't make sense to me. The aircraft is certified to fly with two pilots. Not two pilots and a sky marshall in backup.

 

Of course, in a perfect world everyone should be a pilot

 

Yup, two certified pilots, not one kid who has been playing MSFS and thinks he's a pilot because he can program the PMDC NGX's FMC.

 

- Sent from my rooted, Verizon Samsung Galaxy Nexus LTE smartphone via Tapatalk because haters gonna hate.

 

 

[Robert McDonald 167]

I'm just saying it might have some value to have reserve 'emergency-trained' personnel. Clearly the costs would be prohibitive to have an entire set of extra pilots aboard EVERY flight (even short duration) - whereas having the Sky Marshals and/or cabin crew at least minimally-trained seems like just smart business - even if they NEVER are called upon to actually take the controls. Like a fire extinguisher- you don't realize how valuable it is until the flames are spreading and you realize you don't have one!

 

As Mr. Ruiz rightly said, a kid (even an OLD GUY) playing with the PMDG NGX does not a 'real' pilot make! On the other hand- the airlines have the training facilities and full-motion simulators at hand. Seems like a 'no-brainer' to have the invisible 3rd or 4th pilot(s) available in the background for a 'last-ditch' effort if ever needed. If I were running the airline, it would be a done deal. I wouldn't talk about it to people outside my organization, but I would sleep better knowing our company 'went the extra mile' for the safety of everyone on every flight.

[LHookins 3,117]

Sky Marshals

 

What sky marshals did you have in mind? Did they start putting them on the planes again after 9/11? If so, what the hell is with all the airport security these days?

 

Hook

[Robert McDonald 167]

I don't know what the protocol is nowadays- the Sky Marshal program is not publicized. So whether they are still around or not I couldn't guess. To take the uncertainty out of things, let's say they are on 'some' but not 'all' flights. In that case, it makes more sense to train cabin crew as opposed to the Marshals. Also, each company would be responsible for training their own employees to comply with company-instituted safety protocols and procedures. There could even be a new level of certification - say "emergency responder" as a license class. Less than a full-on pilot, but proof that the person has met certain levels of training only for extreme circumstances. I know this sounds like a crazy idea, but one that might deserve kicking around at the executive level. And again, it's far from "ideal" or "optimal" but at least making some provision if the 'unimaginable' becomes a real life situation.

 

In a case where no company pilots were 'dead-heading' (flying as passengers on their company aircraft while 'off duty') and where no Sky Marshals were aboard, there would still be a 'fail-safe' or 'fall-back' possibility.

[dmwalker 614]

With nobody flying the plane they'll land it from the ground. This was brought up the last time this question came up. Probability of survival over 95%.

As far as I can see, nobody can land it from the ground. The closest anybody has come to this is for crash testing so I'll stick with the probability of survival of 0%.

[Polar 30]

No, because flying an $80 simulation on an archaic platform aka FSX doesn't compare to the thousands of dollars in training and flight hours real pilots get before even sitting in the right seat.

 

It's wishful thinking but great stuff to daydream about when you're bored at work or trying to fall asleep at night.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone...typing errors imminent

No, because flying an $80 simulation on an archaic platform aka FSX doesn't compare to the thousands of dollars in training and flight hours real pilots get before even sitting in the right seat.

 

It's wishful thinking but great stuff to daydream about when you're bored at work or trying to fall asleep at night.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone...typing errors imminent

 

Amen, a toy vs. the real thing....if it were that easy we would all be doing it and the big paychecks would all but be gone.

[WestAir 2,530]

What sky marshals did you have in mind? Did they start putting them on the planes again after 9/11? If so, what the hell is with all the airport security these days?

 

Hook

 

They're Federal Air Marshals with the US Dept. of Homeland Security nowadays. They switched over to the DHS after 9/11 and were renamed to FAM. Considering the DHS also runs TSA, and seeing how they run that, I'm dubious of letting airlines teach FAM's anything regarding aircraft operations.

 

Slightly off-topic here, the closest any airliner has ever come to having both pilots "incapacitated", short of the Helios flight, was that flight [and this comes off of decade-old vague memory, so excuse the details] where the aircraft hit a flock of birds that crashed through the windshield and blinded one pilot, and knocked the other unconscious. If I recall they landed it in the grass somewhere short of the airport.

[OzWhitey 3,353]

Lots of intereting points, half of which i disagree with.

 

The mayday call has come up a bit and to be honest I think it's a complete red herring. I think i've read just about every cvr transcript available, and the real pilots stuff it up (way) more often than not - even our gold standard for awesomeness, cactus 1549, got this one wrong. You need to let ATC know you're in a REAL emergency somehow, you will have their full attention once they realise that you're performing non-normal procedures.

 

Avianca Flight 52 is one of the best examples of a pro crew crew getting the 'letting atc know we really need help" bit epically wrong.

 

Simming is actually pretty good practice for the ATC bit, too! If you fly with something like radar contact, you've probably called a lot of emergencies and know roughly what information is imparted traditionally (souls on board etc). If you've flown much Vatsim, atc communications will be one of the easier parts of this for you.

 

The mistake that the pro crews often seem to make in communications is playing it too cool, and not letting ATC know just how bad things are until they're pretty much at the point of augering in.

[Piggles 17]

Lots of intereting points, half of which i disagree with.

 

The mayday call has come up a bit and to be honest I think it's a complete red herring. I think i've read just about every cvr transcript available, and the real pilots stuff it up (way) more often than not - even our gold standard for awesomeness, cactus 1549, got this one wrong. You need to let ATC know you're in a REAL emergency somehow, you will have their full attention once they realise that you're performing non-normal procedures.

 

 

And if you were not already in contact with ATC and haven't told them, who you are, what you are and where you are, they cannot even begin to assist you...and if you failed to aviate and navigate before making the call, you could already be dead...

 

Avianca Flight 52 is one of the best examples of a pro crew crew getting the 'letting atc know we really need help" bit epically wrong.

 

Simming is actually pretty good practice for the ATC bit, too! If you fly with something like radar contact, you've probably called a lot of emergencies and know roughly what information is imparted traditionally (souls on board etc). If you've flown much Vatsim, atc communications will be one of the easier parts of this for you.

 

 

I can't argue with that, I use the sim a lot to practice ATC calls and for sure it helps with the real world, both with timing and content. I've said earlier that I'm an advocate of sims and they can help with many aspects of real world flying. That doesn't mean playing one means you can land a real plane though...

 

 

The mistake that the pro crews often seem to make in communications is playing it too cool, and not letting ATC know just how bad things are until they're pretty much at the point of augering in.

 

I'm not sure that it is a case of 'often' I could cite far more perfect Mayday calls than poor ones. Even the Cactus 1549 call you refer to appears that it may have been 'clipped' rather than they failed to make the correct call, understandable in the situation. Pilots are trained to keep calls brief and to the point and not to over dramatize a situation. It may look like 'playing it cool' but if the content is there the call is correct.

 

 

3:27:32 New York TRACON: "Cactus 1549, turn left heading 2-7-0."

3:27:36 Flight 1549: "Ah, this, uh, Cactus 1539. Hit birds, we lost thrust in both engines. We're turning back towards LaGuardia."

3:27:42 New York TRACON: "OK, yeah, you need to return to Laguardia. Turn left heading of uh, 2-2-0."

3:27:46 Flight 1549: 2-2-0.

3:27:49 New York TRACON: "Tower, stop your departures. We got an emergency returning."

3:27:53 LaGuardia "Who is it?"

3:27:54 New York TRACON: "It's 1529, he ah, bird strike. He lost all engines. He lost the thrust in the engines. He is returning immediately."

 

They were already in contact with ATC, so no need for who, what or where, souls, simply the nature of the emergency and intention required. So add the missing 'Mayday' which appears on the CVR but not on the ATC transcript and it is a standard and correct call.

 

I also pick up from your post another issue, it appears you think ATC are in charge of the situation, this is a total misconception, the person in the left seat is the pilot in command, ATC are only there to assist you, if they can.

[OzWhitey 3,353]

 

And if you were not already in contact with ATC and haven't told them, who you are, what you are and where you are, they cannot even begin to assist you...and if you failed to aviate and navigate before making the call, you could already be dead...

 

 

 

I can't argue with that, I use the sim a lot to practice ATC calls and for sure it helps with the real world, both with timing and content. I've said earlier that I'm an advocate of sims and they can help with many aspects of real world flying. That doesn't mean playing one means you can land a real plane though...

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure that it is a case of 'often' I could cite far more perfect Mayday calls than poor ones. Even the Cactus 1549 call you refer to appears that it may have been 'clipped' rather than they failed to make the correct call, understandable in the situation. Pilots are trained to keep calls brief and to the point and not to over dramatize a situation. It may look like 'playing it cool' but if the content is there the call is correct.

 

 

3:27:32 New York TRACON: "Cactus 1549, turn left heading 2-7-0."

3:27:36 Flight 1549: "Ah, this, uh, Cactus 1539. Hit birds, we lost thrust in both engines. We're turning back towards LaGuardia."

3:27:42 New York TRACON: "OK, yeah, you need to return to Laguardia. Turn left heading of uh, 2-2-0."

3:27:46 Flight 1549: 2-2-0.

3:27:49 New York TRACON: "Tower, stop your departures. We got an emergency returning."

3:27:53 LaGuardia "Who is it?"

3:27:54 New York TRACON: "It's 1529, he ah, bird strike. He lost all engines. He lost the thrust in the engines. He is returning immediately."

 

They were already in contact with ATC, so no need for who, what or where, souls, simply the nature of the emergency and intention required. So add the missing 'Mayday' which appears on the CVR but not on the ATC transcript and it is a standard and correct call.

 

You mean the 'Cactus 1539' call

 

Besides getting the flight number wrong (and if you look at all the emergency transcripts from that day, it did cause a bit of confusion), bottom line is ATC didn't receive a mayday.

 

That's actually my point - despite no formal mayday call, ATC sprung into action to assist the pilots. So to suggest exact phraseology for the mayday call from the 'passenger flying' is critical to the outcome (as was proposed above) is wrong. The most important thing is to communicate to ATC that you have a real emergency (as the Avianca flight mentioned above manifestly failed to do).

 

Personally, with the number of hours I've got in ngx, the 'both pilots gone' scenario for me would be a 'pan' call, not a 'mayday', anyway.*

 

*(readers please note. The author may have been joking with that last sentence...).

 

[Piggles 17]

The point is the content of the call, nature of emergency and intention. It is clear as a bell that they were declaring an emergency.

 

That is what kicked off the immediate response by ATC. It would also have triggered a response from other pilots on frequency (Who may well have been responsible for the clipping of the Mayday part of the call) to keep quiet.

 

A 'um eerr hello is anybody there?' on frequency would have got no response at all. A 'um eeer hello is anybody there Mayday' might get a response, of who are you...... blah blah blah... then where are you, blah blah blah ...... what are you, blah blah blah, what is the nature of your emergency, blah, blah, blah, ... what is your intention, blah, blah, blah.. you see the situation is probably already over with by now. So no red herring at all. In fact one ought to be wondering at this point if it was appropriate to have even made the call, and should one be playing with the radio or checking that the plane isn't about to fly into the side of a mountain (aviate, navigate, communicate..) You see, the communicate part may never even happen is some situations, it is third on the list, during an EFATO, you'll probably not even get the chance to make a Mayday call. So the line The most important thing is to communicate to ATC that you have a real emergency is not correct at all, it's one of the least important things and comes in after flying and navigating the aircraft.

 

Again I think you are putting too much emphasis on the role of ATC, it is up to the pilot to declare the nature of the emergency, there is little ATC can do about the state of the aircraft other than assist with vectors and advise altitude, they are not going to step in and fly the thing.

 

 

Even the fact so much can be typed about these topics ought to ring some alarm bells that captain ngx simmer is in deep water already...

[pete_auau 1,173]

How many hours does a rw pilot does on the sim (not a pc sim ) before his even allowed to sit in the co pilot seat and than hes sitting next to an expencied captain for his first flight so just because you spent a few hours on the pc sim doesnt quite add up to actually trying to land the ng in real life and expect to walk away from it

[OzWhitey 3,353]

Aviate, navigate, communicate was well covered earlier in this thread and I don't think anyone disagrees with it.

 

If you actually look at the transcripts from 1549/1539/1529/1520 carefully, you'll notice the communications could be markedly improved - from Sully only declaring the mayday to Stiles (traditional to use the PTT button for this bit) to the failure to really make TRACON understand that the plane would be performing a water landing. I think if Sully was doing this bit again he'd change a few things.

 

We are in agreement, though, because my original point was that aviate and navigate take priority - and that's what Cactus 1549 ultimately did such a brilliant job at.

[byork 2,260]

The more interesting question in all of this is: Would the lead FA let you in the cockpit?

 

If both pilots die, the lead FA is the next in command, and she may be a little bit familiar with how to operate the autopilot and radios.

 

So, if she asks if any ***qualified*** pilots are on board, and you put up your hand and say you have "NGX experience", will she laugh or take you seriously???

 

Who knows...

[OzWhitey 3,353]

Well, on my christmas eve flight my daughter told the FA that I 'wanted to be an airline pilot'. Stew looks vaguely interested. Sadly, child then followed up by mentioning that we'd recently been 'playing' flight simulator (and yes, it was NGX with FS2Crew). Stew rolls her eyes.

 

When both pilots have eaten the lasagna and the call goes out - my advice to avsimmers is mention your trivial amount of GA real world flight time first then tell them about your 800 hours of 737 PIC time whilst coughing during the word 'simulated'.