Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Are big jets really easy to fly, or is the ATPL theory just garbage?

I can assure you LC will reply if you ask for them.

A great one-liner Jason but how does this work? (a EuroGA education opportunity )

Topic drift, perhaps, but this sounds like a horrific failing in user interface design.

The people who fly behind these cockpits, and who also fly GA G1000 etc stuff, say the “professional” stuff is much better for the high intensity usage involved. I had a flight in a CJ4 which was Collins Proline (not what airliners have) and this was totally opaque to me; I would have needed to go on a course.

But then I would probably not work out how to drive a G1000 if I had to do it airborne, in a hurry. And actually a lot of G1000 rental planes have been flown, on local/VFR profiles, with an Ipad because the renters could not work it out either

This is really a separate thread from “real” airline pilots with fake exam passes. I thought we had a thread here on whether a PPL could land a jet, but I can’t find it. I think the answer would in most cases be a firm NO unless

  • the PPL was a bit of a techno boffin or had loads of jet home sim time
  • the thing had lots of fuel left, not the usual minimal reserve
  • there was help on the radio from a jet pilot (not ATC; airspace is irrelevant then )

A really good simmer could do it though.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

A great one-liner Jason but how does this work? (a EuroGA education opportunity )

London Control, N12345 on guard

N12345, London Control pass your message

How they do it I have no idea. They obviously monitor the frequency. D&D is prob just in Swanwick too. I assume they just answer as you call. Why does it matter how they do it?

Last Edited by JasonC at 27 Jun 19:48
EGTK Oxford

I understood that the RAF D&D cell uses the callsign London Control on 121.5 but I could be wrong.

Are you suggesting you get the ‘pass your message’ from the same London Control voice you might have been talking to a moment ago on their frequency?

EGLM & EGTN

Indeed; I would like to know

  • which LC desk you get when you call (they have lots of sectors; how would this work on one frequency?)
  • re the “sort of topic” of this thread, how quickly can “whoever replied on 121.5” dig out a current airline pilot to talk you down

There is a funny thread under “Threads possibly related to this one” which the Pakistani officials should read: here

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Is all about the cell:

PDF local copy

Posts are personal views only.
Oxfordshire, United Kingdom

I would say in normal ops these planes are fairly easy to fly, particularly if you have made yourself very much familiar with it before you try to do it.

The sources for that are manifold. To lean how to operate any Airbus you can get the proper software and use anything from Xplane or fSX, Prepare3D e.t.c. to get familiar with it. Same goes for most Boeing models. In general, both Airbus and Boeing FMS are pretty much the same throughout the fleets, e.g. a 737 FMS is pretty similar to a 747, 757 or 767 and even 777 FMS, whereas the A320 FMS is the same in general as the A330/340. I have never seen the 350 or 380 FMS.

The same goes for the autopilots. If you know one boeing AP you know the basics for all of them. Similar for Airbus. The MD80 has a particular AP which is quite different particularly to set up an autoland, much better to fly to CAT1 and land by hand if you are not 100% sure what happens. The MD Autothrottles need to be well understood, which has caused accidents in the past. Read up on CLAMP mode.

In my previous life in entertainment flight simulation I have had the chance of flying a lot of full flight sims, some extendedly. The A320 in normal ops is very easy to fly, even handfly, if you figure out some basics. 737 I´ve only handled once (200 series) and it was like a truck but otherwise also quite easy. Caravelles land very easily due to their huge wing and ground effect. DC9 and MD80 series were fun to fly but a bit more demanding, yet manageable, so was the DC10. The Tupolev 154 was more demanding, as the AP is totally different from anything you know, but very much fun to fly.

The most difficult plane to fly (or rather land) was the MD11.

Would I if the situation arises be able to land any of those out of a cruise flight? If the plane was operating normally I would think so. OEI or other technical defects and it is a differen story but still quite feasible. In such a situation you have a huge amount of freedom to do what you need to do, find a long runway with an ils and get going. If the flight was planned to a big airport, just follow the FMS and then get vectors to the ILS. If weather is garbage go somewhere it isnt.

If an individual would do what the Pakistanis apparently did, I would expect the licence deviatios won´t be on the side of the type rating but rather the license itself. ATPLs are cumbersome to get, so if you fake that, the type rating will teach you all you need to know on the operation side of things.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

alioth wrote:

Topic drift, perhaps, but this sounds like a horrific failing in user interface design

Well isn’t that the point of the type rating? It’s not difficult to change frequency on a Proline21 setup, but you need to know it’s on the TUN page of the FMS

Darley Moor, Gamston (UK)

And actually a lot of G1000 rental planes have been flown, on local/VFR profiles, with an Ipad because the renters could not work it out either.

He he. I think it’s a question of how many gadgets you have the stomach to bother to learn, especially if they work substantially less satisfactory with what you already got.

This weekend I had a longish flight in the P2008. State of the art G3X touch. The EFIS unit is OK, but the moving map is rubbish compared with SD. With SD I can create the route on the PC the night before, big screen, a mouse etc. Save it, and take it up on my pad or phone when starting up. The best part, it works on all kind planes same interface, same settings, same maps, same everything.

For IFR I guess it would be different ? (the P2008 also has VOR in addition to the GPS) For VFR, the G3X moving map is mostly a redundant pice of rubbish IMO, except if you navigate mainly by paper maps, then it becomes useful, but no more useful than ancient Garmin mounted handhelds.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

It is much easier to look at an unfamiliar plate geo-ref in IPad than looking at big G1000 screen let alone G430

Also, surprisingly my “buttonology” currency is always practiced on iPad/phone while on glass cockpit I need 5h of calm flying or simulator before I start pressing things without thinking in hardcore flying

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

LeSving wrote:

For IFR I guess it would be different ? (the P2008 also has VOR in addition to the GPS) For VFR, the G3X moving map is mostly a redundant pice of rubbish IMO, except if you navigate mainly by paper maps, then it becomes useful, but no more useful than ancient Garmin mounted handhelds.

It’s not that different for IFR, really. I’m quite happy with SD when flying IFR.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top