H G S?

[Lukas_Mathijsen 41]

That's just what I was thinking too Brian.

Lukas, I wasn't referring to that but the system on the pedestal.

Dave -

I understand. HGS panel on the pedestal controls what is shown on the combiner. In other words: if you have the combiner installed you need the HGS panel on the pedestal. If you have the HGS panel installed you have the combiner installed. One without the other is pointless.

[PHXMD-11 86]

 

 

That's just what I was thinking too Brian.

 

Why? Shouldn't he know about what is on his operator's 737s and not every little thing on another operator's 737s?

[G7USL 117]

Why? Shouldn't he know about what is on his operator's 737s and not every little thing on another operator's 737s?

I would have thought that getting a 'Type Rating' would cover all those things?

[Copper. 78]

I said should, not must.

 

He should know because... its a unique feature, albeit an optional one, of the 737.

He should know because its quite possible it has been the subject under consideration and discussion either with his colleagues or during formal training.

 

Even so, 'should know' does not equal 'must know'. He could simply not be interested in the slightest in knowing the optional particulars, as unique as they are.

 

Brian Nellis.

[g_precentralis 191]

In my own experience aviation professionals usually are not interested in anything outside of their area of responsibility. 

 

I met pilots cannot distinguish different aircraft, air traffic controllers do not know names of airways passing through their sector... The answer was always simple:" I do not need to know that and I do not want to know that". ATC answered he has airways names displayed at display, and his only know entry/exit points of his sector.

Aviation enthusiasts usually have much wider knowledge than professional pilots.

[zmak 331]

looks like gods waiting room 

[Spin737 102]

I would have thought that getting a 'Type Rating' would cover all those things?

Nope. There's no requirement for HUD work on a type. You wouldn't be able to do CAT IIIa hybrid approaches,  but you'd still have the type. I have two (yes, two) B737 types, and I only found out about IAN a year ago. Never flew a plane that had it, so I never had to know.

[Copper. 78]

In my own experience aviation professionals usually are not interested in anything outside of their area of responsibility.

 

I met pilots cannot distinguish different aircraft, air traffic controllers do not know names of airways passing through their sector... The answer was always simple:" I do not need to know that and I do not want to know that". ATC answered he has airways names displayed at display, and his only know entry/exit points of his sector.

Aviation enthusiasts usually have much wider knowledge than professional pilots.

My experience has been the opposite. Maybe it's because we/I look to other parts of the world in envy and in so doing, learn and teach from/to one another through general conversation.

 

Lol at the gods waiting room comment.

 

Regards,

Brian Nellis.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

[Vagabondo 23]

 

 

A man with his alleged experience on the 737, irrespective if his hours are on the Classics or NG's, should know about the HGS.

Absolutely not. If the operator does not use a piece of equipment, then the crew operating those aircraft will not be given any information on it. As Kenny said, the FCOM is operator specific, meaning it only talks about the options actually used by the airline. For example, we have the HGS on our fleet, but we don't have the HGS control panel - even NGX doesn't cover all the variables!

 

 

 

He should know because... its a unique feature, albeit an optional one, of the 737.
He should know because its quite possible it has been the subject under consideration and discussion either with his colleagues or during formal training.

Not knowing about certain options in no reflection on the professionalism of a pilot. Unless you are aircrew, you probably don't really appreciate the depth of knowledge requires in all matters, technical, legislation, procedure and management. It is a full time job retaining sufficient knowledge of all these things with the level of proficiency required not just for fundamentally safe operations, but to maintain the standards the company is looking for.

 

With regards to training, type rating training is either company specific or generic. With regards to generic training I very much doubt there are many Independence FTOs out there with an HGS in their sim that hasn't been ordered by specific operator.

[G7USL 117]

To follow up with my initial posting, he did announce that 'before retiring he was an instructor'!   Now of all people including pilots on £1000+ per week. he should be knowledgeable of ALL 737NG types whether Thompsonfly is using them or not? 

[Lukas_Mathijsen 41]

we have the HGS on our fleet, but we don't have the HGS control panel

Eh? How you control the HGS then?????

[japascoe 98]

To follow up with my initial posting, he did announce that 'before retiring he was an instructor'! Now of all people including pilots on £1000+ per week. he should be knowledgeable of ALL 737NG types whether Thompsonfly is using them or not?

Not if he only instructed for Thompsonfly.

[Spin737 102]

To follow up with my initial posting, he did announce that 'before retiring he was an instructor'! Now of all people including pilots on £1000+ per week. he should be knowledgeable of ALL 737NG types whether Thompsonfly is using them or not?

No. The dude is retiring. Some codgers can barely keep up with their own company, let alone others.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

I'm gonna say something that most will probably find horrible and mean, but I feel like it needs to be said based on some of the posts here:

This is kinda why real pilots have a distaste for sim pilots.

 

At the same time, and you all have definitely heard this before:

Just because someone has loads and loads of hours doesn't mean they know everything - right or wrong.

 

 

 

Now, let me clarify before you all break out pitchforks and torches...

 

 

 

As a pilot myself, who also jumps in FSX a bunch (a ton more now that I'm on a little flying hiatus), I'm not going to sit here and trash simmers and claim that I've never been a part of that - I definitely have - but hear me out.

 

I don't know what it is about simmers - a want to impress a real pilot, a want to show they know more than the real pilot, or just a misunderstanding that being a real pilot means you know everything about aviation - but talking with them, or watching them with another pilot, occasionally makes me cringe.  Not to call anyone out here, but what was the purpose asking about the HUGS here?  It's an option in the NGX because it's an option on the NG.  This is known.  How to use it is also known as the knowledge is conveyed in the tutorials.

 

Since the information is known, what purpose did the line of questioning serve, other than to put the man on the spot?  Granted, it could have been a legitimate, curious question with no motives behind that.  I won't say either way, but it ended up putting the man on the spot.  That could've called his credibility into question with others in the room, which isn't really fair for the reasons people have already mentioned. 

 

I know several pilots with several thousand hours who would all give you a blank stare if you mentioned a HUGS, or a HUD, or all kinds of various technologies.  Heck, one of them flew for thousands of hours in a 727 and actually asked me to sit down and explain RNAV, RNAV RNP and RNP/ANP to him.  Does that mean his hours are null and void?  Hardly.  He's just flown a more hands-on version of aviation for a while (FDX's 72s were /A all the way to the end - that's the tracking VOR radials all day kind of flying - no magenta line there).  Some 727s had a GNS-XLS Flight Management System.  He probably had no idea.  Why?  The planes he flew didn't have it.  There's a diesel version of the Diamond I fly.  Do I know a thing about it?  Noooope.

 

 

 

I get that a lot of you are passionate about aviation.  I really do.  I've been there.  All I've ever wanted to do in my life is fly, and talk about aviation (which is why I'm here all the time).  Showing off your knowledge to real pilots, trying to prove you know more than real pilots, or assuming real pilots know everything will only serve to disappoint, however.  The first two only serve to give you a negative reputation in the community (and, as simmers, the actions of simmers before us already get us prejudged in those circles - please don't add to it), and the latter only sets you up for disappointment.  The latter is also heavily unrealistic.  That's like trying to say that a football goalie should know the intricacies of bending the football in for a perfect setup for a header just because...well...it's the same sport.

 

I just wanted to say that because nobody ever said that to me before I saw the other side of the fence.  I'm not casting aspersions.  I'm not calling anyone a jerk.  I'm simply pointing out that we already have a negative reputation with the real flying world because of the reasons I mentioned earlier.  Most specifically, those first two.  Most real pilots are really passionate about aviation, too.  Share that passion on a common ground and enjoy it together.

[Copper. 78]

This will be my final response on the matter, as I'd like to clear at least one thing up.

 

Vagabondo - First point I'd like to make, and it's a big one - it isn't, and wasn't my intention to question the professionalism of the alleged pilot by asserting that he 'should know' about the HGS. It's just an assertion, a mis-interpreted one, clearly. He didn't/doesn't know; surprising? Yes. Indicative of his professionalism? Hardly!

Second point - it's not only aircrew who have to demonstrate competence/proficiency when going about their duties that involve aircraft; of this fact, I can assure you.

Third and final point - there is no final point; I've lost interest

 

Regards,

Brian Nellis.