8 ms·

>> It can take pilots up to 30 seconds to reorient themselves, a long time while behind the stick of a jet aircraft. Their is an old chopper pilot saying: the

>> It can take pilots up to 30 seconds to reorient themselves, a long time while behind the stick of a jet aircraft. Their is an old chopper pilot saying: the faster the aircraft the slower the pilot. You think 30 seconds is a long time in a fighter jet at 30,000 feet? Try 30 seconds when trying to land helicopter on the deck of a pitching ship. A 747 flies at basically the same speed as a fighter (~mach 0.8), in many cases actually faster. Nobody talks about those pilots having to think quickly. The time to make decisions is a function of how close you are to the ground, not how fast you are moving.

oefnak 5y ago
Yes, but fighter jets often fly closer to the ground and change direction more often (than airliners).
- jameshart 5y ago
  At the point of closest approach, airliners fly just as close to the ground as fighter aircraft. Usually twice per flight.
  - dspillett 5y ago
    In a very straight, guided, line, down an uncluttered path. [usually, weather conditions may make things more difficult of course, and some city airports are dubiously enough placed to put the willies up your average pilot]
- trelane 5y ago
  Fighter jets are also unstable, by design. Commercial aircraft are required to be stable, as they don't need to change direction quickly, but rather be as safe as possible. https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/3-types-of-static-and-dynamic-stability-in-aircraft https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/3-types...
  - LilDioBrando 5y ago
    So that's why I can't properly trim my fighter jet in DCS to fly in a straight line with no altitude change. I still think I'm bad at it tho.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
dylan604 5y ago
By design, a 747 pilot is a glorified bus driver that flys in a fairly straight path. Nobody talks about quick thinking until they do. Captain Sully ring any bells? That wasn't a 30k feet either. When an airliner has something go wrong, it's hundreds of people that are affected and will always make the news. By design, a fighter pilot does a heck of a lot more than a airline pilot. When a pilot does something wrong, we rarely hear about it. Comparing them in this manner is just disenginuous.
- danielEM 5y ago
  Not yet a bus driver, but we're heading that way. Slowly.
  - mrtksn 5y ago
    I disagree, I think the destination is "elevator operator" and we are half way there. Automating flight has quite a bit of low hanging fruits and Airbus has become the first harvester out there. The rest opposed at first, but the only logical path forward is automating people out of the systems. Yes, we had the 737MAX thingy but even then arguments for re-humanisation of aircraft controls didn't catch much traction.
    - throwawayboise 5y ago
      737MAX would not have crashed if it were being flown autonomously, as the entire MCAS system would have been unnecessary. It was there to meet regulations regarding control feel for human pilots.
      - trelane 5y ago
        Also because full automation means pilots, so no certifications for any aircraft types, let alone the same one. So there would be no need to force the plane to be a "737".
        kzrdude 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tim333 5y ago
The kind of disorientation I think they are thinking about is the plane ends up upside down in cloud but the pilot thinks he's the right way up. In that situation the plane will be accelerating towards the ground at 2G which will have you going downwards at 400 mph in 10 seconds. In that context 30 seconds would see you pancaked. 747s don't do maneuvers that lead to them being in extreme orientations but fighter jets etc do.
- Retric 5y ago
  747s can see and survive major upsets especially if people don’t trust their instruments. In one case a 747 survived the pilot pulling 5.1g’s on China Airlines flight 006 in 1985: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR8603.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/... More generally commercial aircraft should be able to take +2.5g to -1g safely at max takeoff weight, and roughly 50% above that before massive structural damage.
duxup 5y ago
> Nobody talks about those pilots having to think quickly. Most pilot training talks about staying on top of and evaluating the situation. Staying ahead of the airplane (managing your workload) and falling behind (and the fact that speed changes that) are not uncommon topics.
dahart 5y ago
> The time to make decisions is a function of how close you are to the ground, not how fast you are moving. Why is that the conclusion of 747 vs F-16? Proximity to ground is a glaringly incomplete takeaway. Fighter jets are a-priori designed for quicker decision making, not primarily because of the ground, but primarily because they’re built for fighting other fighter jets. Proximity to other jets can happen at 30k feet. Fighter jets are built to withstand a much higher limit load than 747s - at least 2x higher G forces; the fighter jet was designed for faster turns. Everything about the fighter jet is intended for faster decision making and everything about the 747 and it’s flight procedures is designed to be as boring (safe) as possible.

oefnak 5y ago

Yes, but fighter jets often fly closer to the ground and change direction more often (than airliners).

jameshart 5y ago
At the point of closest approach, airliners fly just as close to the ground as fighter aircraft. Usually twice per flight.
- dspillett 5y ago
  In a very straight, guided, line, down an uncluttered path. [usually, weather conditions may make things more difficult of course, and some city airports are dubiously enough placed to put the willies up your average pilot]
trelane 5y ago
Fighter jets are also unstable, by design. Commercial aircraft are required to be stable, as they don't need to change direction quickly, but rather be as safe as possible. https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/3-types-of-static-and-dynamic-stability-in-aircraft https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/3-types...
- LilDioBrando 5y ago
  So that's why I can't properly trim my fighter jet in DCS to fly in a straight line with no altitude change. I still think I'm bad at it tho.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

dylan604 5y ago

By design, a 747 pilot is a glorified bus driver that flys in a fairly straight path. Nobody talks about quick thinking until they do. Captain Sully ring any bells? That wasn't a 30k feet either. When an airliner has something go wrong, it's hundreds of people that are affected and will always make the news. By design, a fighter pilot does a heck of a lot more than a airline pilot. When a pilot does something wrong, we rarely hear about it. Comparing them in this manner is just disenginuous.

danielEM 5y ago
Not yet a bus driver, but we're heading that way. Slowly.
- mrtksn 5y ago
  I disagree, I think the destination is "elevator operator" and we are half way there. Automating flight has quite a bit of low hanging fruits and Airbus has become the first harvester out there. The rest opposed at first, but the only logical path forward is automating people out of the systems. Yes, we had the 737MAX thingy but even then arguments for re-humanisation of aircraft controls didn't catch much traction.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    737MAX would not have crashed if it were being flown autonomously, as the entire MCAS system would have been unnecessary. It was there to meet regulations regarding control feel for human pilots.
    - trelane 5y ago
      Also because full automation means pilots, so no certifications for any aircraft types, let alone the same one. So there would be no need to force the plane to be a "737".
      - kzrdude 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tim333 5y ago

The kind of disorientation I think they are thinking about is the plane ends up upside down in cloud but the pilot thinks he's the right way up. In that situation the plane will be accelerating towards the ground at 2G which will have you going downwards at 400 mph in 10 seconds. In that context 30 seconds would see you pancaked. 747s don't do maneuvers that lead to them being in extreme orientations but fighter jets etc do.

Retric 5y ago
747s can see and survive major upsets especially if people don’t trust their instruments. In one case a 747 survived the pilot pulling 5.1g’s on China Airlines flight 006 in 1985: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR8603.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/... More generally commercial aircraft should be able to take +2.5g to -1g safely at max takeoff weight, and roughly 50% above that before massive structural damage.

duxup 5y ago

> Nobody talks about those pilots having to think quickly. Most pilot training talks about staying on top of and evaluating the situation. Staying ahead of the airplane (managing your workload) and falling behind (and the fact that speed changes that) are not uncommon topics.

dahart 5y ago

> The time to make decisions is a function of how close you are to the ground, not how fast you are moving. Why is that the conclusion of 747 vs F-16? Proximity to ground is a glaringly incomplete takeaway. Fighter jets are a-priori designed for quicker decision making, not primarily because of the ground, but primarily because they’re built for fighting other fighter jets. Proximity to other jets can happen at 30k feet. Fighter jets are built to withstand a much higher limit load than 747s - at least 2x higher G forces; the fighter jet was designed for faster turns. Everything about the fighter jet is intended for faster decision making and everything about the 747 and it’s flight procedures is designed to be as boring (safe) as possible.