TUCKnTRUCK
That guy
But yet Mr.Wagner continues to give online dual instruction over in Oakland…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
AC 120-123
- Thread starter bLizZuE
- Start date
But yet Mr.Wagner continues to give online dual instruction over in Oakland…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Strongly suspect he is uninsured.
TUCKnTRUCK
That guy
Do you think he actually owns that outright? Part of me suspects no... I suspect he's with some fly by night UW/ agent or has possibly misrepresented himself.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I have no personal knowledge, but he fits the profile of a typical twin Cessna owner who has more money than brains and experience combined. I suspect he bought it cash and has no insurance.
ozziecat35
4 out of 5 great lakes prefer Michigan.
I got to take an MEL’d AT bird MSY-HOU-MAF last week…felt good to actually do stuff. They do make you super lazy.
Now no FD/AP/AT? That’s dumb. Doable if needed sure, but let’s not practice with peeps who didn’t sign up for that in the back.
Now no FD/AP/AT? That’s dumb. Doable if needed sure, but let’s not practice with peeps who didn’t sign up for that in the back.
Autothrust Blue
"Well, on the Brasilia..."
"Operators should consider that many exercises required to be hand flown are well-known and repetiitve and may not measure the true underlying skill level outside of those specific exercises. Rather, operators should use safety system data and industry best practices to identify opportunities to present both expected and unexpected scenarios requiring manual flight that better measure and improve proficiency in FPM skills during MFO." Parenthetical omitted.
No kidding. It's almost as if some maneuvers we regularly validate are actually assessments of control and performance, particularly certain worst-case-scenarios in terms of raw pilot ability, and not necessarily the most likely thing that is going to happen on a line operation. That's not to say the maneuver isn't worth validating—far from it—but it's insufficient to simply tick the box.
Anyway, proper proficiency at all levels of automation—from none whatsoever, to a flight director, to an autopilot, to an FMC telling an autopilot where to take the jet—should be the objective, as opposed to the "always use highest level of automation" that seems to have been the zeitgeist. Your program should give pilots opportunities to exercise all of those levels, be proficient in all of them, give them scenarios in which selecting a different level (sometimes higher, sometimes lower, sometimes none!) is a good outcome. And policy should empower pilots to do the same.
Anyway:
No kidding. It's almost as if some maneuvers we regularly validate are actually assessments of control and performance, particularly certain worst-case-scenarios in terms of raw pilot ability, and not necessarily the most likely thing that is going to happen on a line operation. That's not to say the maneuver isn't worth validating—far from it—but it's insufficient to simply tick the box.
Anyway, proper proficiency at all levels of automation—from none whatsoever, to a flight director, to an autopilot, to an FMC telling an autopilot where to take the jet—should be the objective, as opposed to the "always use highest level of automation" that seems to have been the zeitgeist. Your program should give pilots opportunities to exercise all of those levels, be proficient in all of them, give them scenarios in which selecting a different level (sometimes higher, sometimes lower, sometimes none!) is a good outcome. And policy should empower pilots to do the same.
Anyway:
