Can a novice land an airliner? Mythbusters testing it now!

[Kaboodle]

I am a private pilot. I have about a hundred hours of flight time mostly in Cessna 172’s.

Before I learned to fly, I loved flying games but not strict flight simulators. Being the oldster that I am :), at the time (to me) sims were clunky and pixelated. Throw me into a prop plane dogfight at 20,000 feet and I was in heaven… until my plane was riddled with bullets and I went down in flames.

When I decided to learn how to fly, I took an orientation flight to check out the school and the planes. The instructor took me up and gave me the controls and talked me through some basic maneuvers. After about a 40 minute flight, she talked me through the approach. She didn’t tell me when to turn but told me what I needed to know on how to position myself and turn where appropriate.

The instructor was giving me specific instructions on carb heat, throttle/RPM’s, and flaps but let me do it all myself. I made it through the downwind leg (for non-pilots, parallel to the runway traveling the opposite direction that you will land), base (perpendicular to the runway), and I was on final (lined up and descending to land).

I think that was the first time in my life I experienced true information overload. I heard her tell me to set full flaps but it just didn’t register. I was concentrating on so many things at once that there was nothing left over to interpret her words. No big deal, she reached over and moved the flap lever down one notch from 20[sup]o[/sup] to 30[sup]o[/sup].

I won’t say it was the prettiest landing but I was centered on the runway and I did my flare well enough that we didn’t bounce. In an unused space of that very first line in my logbook the instructor wrote “Landing was all yours!!!”.

After I had soloed and was well into my training I routinely preferred to land using only 20[sup]o[/sup] of flaps. So even if the instructor wasn’t there to move the flaps lever I probably would have been fine.

During my training there was a full page article in the paper. Two friends, one a pilot and one a non-pilot, regularly flew together. The pilot had shown the non-pilot some basic in-air maneuvers but nothing about takeoff or landing. One day they were flying and the pilot had a heart attack. Someone in a ground station (I don’t know if it was ATC or just a Unicom) talked the non-pilot through a safe landing.

[Omniscient]

Am I the only one that found the absolute most challenging thing in flight training to be learning the radio calls and remembering when to get permission for things and using the lingo?

[Broomstick]

@Omniscient

That’s not really the case. Large commercial planes (and small commuters) are extremely stable. Responsiveness and stability are diametrically opposed concepts and a very stable plane is precisely the type that a beginner could manage. Because it’s nominally stable it’s apt to almost land itself if you manage the throttle properly and are in the proper approach vector because the plane is almost stuck in level flight. A pilot would almost have to break his arms to “over correct” or make anything like an “extreme maneuver”, the controls simply won’t allow any type of maneuver that would strain the airframe short of a nosedive.

Perhaps one of our big iron pilots will be along to confirm or deny my position on this, which is that, despite the stability of the aircraft mentioned, making an extreme maneuver is not beyond the realm of possibility. IIRC, 30 degrees of nose down or nose up will disengage the autopilot, leaving the airplane on manual. You wouldn’t want an airplane so stable that you couldn’t quickly depart level flight because you might need to dodge something quickly, like another airplane.

The reason landing a large plane would be more challenging, aside from the complexity of the computer and nav systems, is because it has a relatively high landing speed. That high landing speed requires a narrower window for the proper approach speeds and AOA. Momentum really has nothing to do with that landing speed either, the plane has to travel at a high speed to avoid a stall. Momentum only really comes into play during braking when the plane is already on the ground.

>cough< - a stall is dependent only on angle of attack! High airspeed does not prevent a stall, airplanes are quite capable of stalling at high airspeeds. Approach speeds are typically a set value above minimum controllable airspeed (1.3 in the airplanes I fly, but it does vary and I can’t assume airliners would use the exact same value) but one can approach slower than the standard value so long as one does not stall - which, again, is dependent on angle of attack which does affect airspeed and thus airspeed can be an indication of AoA but is not a definitive means of determining AoA. Momentum does have an effect in both changing airspeed and in changing direction - an important factor in doing a go-around without slamming into the ground hard enough to break things, as just one example. The higher the speed the greater the momentum, just as greater payload results in higher momentum.

A pilot could very easily make a untrained landing with good instruction so long as the plane is in good working order and they are calm.

The problem is 1) obtaining good instruction for the ad hoc pilot and 2) keeping calm. I am trained pilot of small airplanes who has handled a number of emergencies but I’m not sure how calm I’d be if suddenly in control of a 737 (as an example). For someone with no pilot experience/training it’s a real question of whether or not they’d be able to remain calm enough to do the job.

The reason I believe this is because the ATC could always instruct the pilot to abort any landing attempt if they are outside the proper glide path.

You do realize that there is no requirement that an ATC be a pilot and indeed most have no pilot training whatsoever? Decisions to abort in most cases is usually made by the pilot - while ATC might order a go-around for obstacle on the runway or traffic conflict they are not in the habit of making judgment calls about approach glideslope. It is quite possible to land an airplane using an approach outside the “proper” glidepath. I could even envision a circumstance where, with an untutored pilot, that might be a good idea - a very long, very shallow approach might be easier for the untutored to managed than the norm. On the other hand, use of approach aids such as VASI or PAPI can be extrememly easy, even the first time around but they are oriented to be seen and used by the person in the cockpit, not the person in the control tower.

Aborting a landing and doing a go-round is extremely simple

IF

1. the weather is clear
2. it is daytime
3. there are no obstacles around such as buildings or mountains
4. there isn’t a lot of other aircraft traffic around

A go-around CAN be simple… but retraction of flaps, spoilers, etc. and reconfiguring the airplane from descent to climb can make for quite a bit of business in the cockpit

so one would assume that the novice could simply keep retrying the approach until they finally find the right speed and altitude combination. Once they get into that profile and have it properly trimmed the plane is essentially landed.

Again, I wish one of the Dopers with real experience in these airplanes would comment, but my impression is that airliners are not quite that forgiving of error.

At the end of the Mythbusters episode the instructor playing the role of the person talking them down points out how to set the autoland on the airplane, allowing the machine to land itself. Oddly enough, prior threads here also mentioned that solution as being the most reliable and safest under such circumstances.

[Shagnasty]

@Omniscient

Am I the only one that found the absolute most challenging thing in flight training to be learning the radio calls and remembering when to get permission for things and using the lingo?

No you aren’t. Handling a small plane is pretty easy in a general sense. I take my flight lessons at a large tower controlled airport that has airspce directly below Boston Logan. I still don’t understand how my flight instructors know when to freak out when we are about to bust Logan’s airspace 20 miles out. I have been reading a map more than once when an instructor declared “My plane, my plane” followed by a sudden dive to avoid protected airspace. It seemed like nothing to me and I have no idea how they knew there was a problem.

[Omniscient]

Broomstick, I essentially agree with all your points, but I think the OP’s hypothetical, at least as I read it, assumes the Airplane! scenario where the person is able to get aircraft specific, experienced flight instruction from the ground and that the conditions are not the issue. In my mind I’m presuming that the pilot goes unconscious an hour out and the novice has plenty of time to be calmed and generally acquainted with the aircrafts controls and readings.

Essentially reducing the question to if a first-timer is capable of manually landing a airliner via voice instruction all other things being equal. Adding additional complications ad infinitum obviously reduces the likelihood exponentially.

As for the stability question, I hardly consider taking the nose 30 degrees out of level an extreme maneuver. Certainly the plane can be controlled, but the control limitations far exceed the structural ones, that’s essentially the extent of my point. Sadly, planes cannot move quickly out of level, straight flight and that’s been the cause of more than a few serious air disasters.

AoA and velocity are inextricably linked so claiming a stall is solely dependent on AoA, while technically true, ignores the real world situations discussed. Lift Curves tend to be the foray of engineers and is generally not known or well understood by many pilots, this is why every plane has a stall speed assigned to it for each weight. Those “approach speeds” are set relative to the stall speeds which essentially confirms my point.

Momentum isn’t really an issue per se as it applies to flight control. The aircraft’s relative position (yaw, pitch, roll) moves about it’s center of gravity. The structure’s inertia will resist a change in aspect, but the plane has zero relative velocity as far as the flight controls are concerned. To roll the rings out of level they must move up and down, the planes momentum is moving forward, relative to the direction of roll it has zero momentum in level flight.

Momentum simply isn’t a critical concept in flight dynamics because a plane is essentially always a system in equilibrium. It exists in all physics of course, but it’s not a controlling factor in aerodynamics.

[Broomstick]

@Omniscient

As for the stability question, I hardly consider taking the nose 30 degrees out of level an extreme maneuver.

According the the regulations, anything beyond 30 degrees from level in the pitch axis is considered aerobatic and outside normal flight - you may not consider it extreme but apparently others have a different opinion.

Certainly the plane can be controlled, but the control limitations far exceed the structural ones, that’s essentially the extent of my point.

Huh?

Unless there is an installed limitation, such as a computer that simply won’t let you exceed certain parameters, you certainly can use the controls to exceed structural limitations.

Sadly, planes cannot move quickly out of level, straight flight and that’s been the cause of more than a few serious air disasters.

Which ones were those?

[DesertDog]

@gotpasswords

Old pilots’ saying - a good landing is any one you can walk away from. A really good landing is one you walk away from and the airplane is still usable.

I always wonder when I hear that: Points off for limping?

[Sitnam]

@SenorBeef

I’m not a pilot, but I’ve heard that often novice students and even first-time students are given the opportunity to land small planes. If you understand how planes work and what controls do, and you’re in good conditions, I don’t see why landing something like a 172 would be very difficult.

In a word…stress. This is your life in your very hands. Death is quite possible and quickly approaching. Landing anything with an instructor next to you or at a computer keyboard is not even close. It didn’t say landing a 172 is very hard, I simply said it takes practice and that is experience that isn’t just helpful, it’s necessary. The first few times you land with an instructor it feels like you did most of it, but all the while the instructor was making small corrections that saved your life. Problems compound quickly and with the delay in the controls of a large jet aircraft a slight hiccup will start a chain of events leading to a fiery end for a rookie.

[Jimson_Jim]

As a 13 year old kid I and others in my Civil Air Patrol Unit (think boy scouts but focused on planes and wearing small military uniforms) each got some time on a 747 simulator at a training facility somewhere around O’Hare Airport. This was back in the early 80’s before all the simulators out now. It was a really special event as far as we were concerned. We were all 13-15 years old, each had a few hours of flight instruction and understood the basics. With out help the first 2 or 3 landings were all horrible fiery crashes. With good instruction and the chance to watch your friends fail miserably things got better. The most unnerving thing to me was that large jets need to approach at an uncomfortably fast speed. Without someone to help your tendency is to slow down to the point you stall. Especially if all you experience is in a Piper Cub.

[Omniscient]

@Broomstick

Unless there is an installed limitation, such as a computer that simply won’t let you exceed certain parameters, you certainly can use the controls to exceed structural limitations.

In a large commercial aircraft, no you can’t. The flight control surfaces are simply too small, an aircraft will stall and fall out of the sky before you can generate enough Gs to sheer off the wings or otherwise damage the airframe. Military aircraft and small acrobatic craft are a different story

SenorBeef implied otherwise.

[Broomstick]

@Omniscient

In a large commercial aircraft, no you can’t. The flight control surfaces are simply too small, an aircraft will stall and fall out of the sky before you can generate enough Gs to sheer off the wings or otherwise damage the airframe. Military aircraft and small acrobatic craft are a different story

On what do you base that statement?

[GargoyleWB]

@Omniscient

Am I the only one that found the absolute most challenging thing in flight training to be learning the radio calls and remembering when to get permission for things and using the lingo?

Me too. Flying and landing was easy…memorizing radio and airspace protocol and parsing scratchy staticky garbled radio calls was hard!

[Omniscient]

@Broomstick

On what do you base that statement?

On my BS in Aeronautical Engineering for starters. If you want to do the equations yourself, feel free to pickup a copy of Raymer’s AIRCRAFT DESIGN: A Conceptual Approach and read chapter 14.3 and 16.4. I’m happy to loan you my copy if you want to jump on the Ryan and head up this way. Bone up on your Diff. Eq. first.

[mnemosyne]

I once had a chance to try out (for about 30 minutes) a 777 full-flight simulator. I had/have zero flight experience, in any type of aircraft, and I know only the very basics of flight mechanics.

This is a link to an image of the cockpit;
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Boeing_777_Cockpit.jpg

The sheer number of buttons and knobs are insanely overwhelming. Oddly, the first two I really focused on were the seat belt and no-smoking sign knobs (I allowed smoking on my flight hehehe).

I was able to figure out the screen on the left fairly quickly, mostly after I’d actually gotten the plane to take off, since that’s when things started to line up into meaningful messages! The airport we took off from was Sea-Tac (and having recently been to Seattle, it really is identical, even though it’s computer generated. They use satellite images to generate the city, and they even have things like moving traffic on highways around the airport and such!) We flew around Mount Rainier, and then decided to come back to Seattle to try and land it.

I got confused at first, because they set me up onto an approach line that seemed perpendicular to the runway, until I understood that the runway I was looking at was Boeing Field, and not Sea-Tac.

On my first landing attempt, I wasn’t at the right angle at all, and alarms were ringing left and right, so I pulled up and aborted the landing (no life lost!). We didn’t fly around again, but rather just reset the software for another approach, and this time I was able to follow the glide-slope perfectly, and had a very smooth landing (full motion was turned on, so we definitely would have known if it was a crash landing!) My husband had to adjust the flaps a little bit, and he told me when to reverse the thrust on the engines, but otherwise, it was all me! I was quite proud of myself.

I then taxied the plane towards the terminal, I think towards the South Satellite, but I screwed up the approach to the jetway, so my passengers all had to just take a staircase out! I have to say, driving a plane around is nearly as much fun as flying one!

Another employee had been watching the visuals-only of my flight on a computer in another room, and he thought someone else was landing it, because it was just a “perfect” landing! (Note, this other employee is not a pilot, he’s just worked on full-flight sims for 2+ years).

Since then, I am just dying to get the chance to fly one of those things again! On my flights this past week, I kept imagining the cockpit, and how the plane was being controlled… I NEED to learn to fly now! (Although none of the planes I have taken lately were 777s)

So yeah, with minimal instruction from non-pilots, in a “real” cockpit with full-realism simulation turned on, and not much stress but lots of excitement, this 100% non-pilot was able to land a Boeing 777 not only without loss of life, but with no damage to the aircraft! Go me!

(after that perfect landing, they turned off the full-crash, and I deliberately crashed the plane into a lake, causing it to skip like a stone until it hit a cliff on the other side. That was fun too, but apparently with the full-crash setting, we’d all have some degree of whiplash!)

[ElvisL1ves]

@Omniscient

In a large commercial aircraft, no you can’t. The flight control surfaces are simply too small, an aircraft will stall and fall out of the sky before you can generate enough Gs to sheer off the wings or otherwise damage the airframe.

The A300’s rudder is a notable exception. An airliner certainly can be broken up in the air by exceeding the flight envelope, for instance by entering high turbulence at above the maneuvering speed, or in an improperly-exited spin. Oh, um, aerospace engineer and private pilot here, and I never have the fish before flying.

Many people who fly regularly with private pilots get “Pinch Hitter” training - a few hours that’s enough to get down safely, but not full pilot training. It’s saved a few people.

I never had a problem with radio work, incidentally - I *like * it. Being able to convey every bit of information you need to, and none that you don’t, as concisely and clearly as possible is just fun. It’s the essence of the idea of communication. It does sound like code at first, because it is, but it impresses passengers and groundlings, too.

Shagnasty, where do you fly? BVY, BED, or OWD, I take it. Spend enough hours around any airport and you know the landmarks. The innermost ring around BOS lines up pretty neatly with Route 128, if that explains anything. It could also be that your instructor is looking at the circle on your GPS, but that’s cheating.

[Broomstick]

@Omniscient

On my BS in Aeronautical Engineering for starters. If you want to do the equations yourself, feel free to pickup a copy of Raymer’s AIRCRAFT DESIGN: A Conceptual Approach and read chapter 14.3 and 16.4. I’m happy to loan you my copy if you want to jump on the Ryan and head up this way. Bone up on your Diff. Eq. first.

Just curious as to whether you actually had some knowledge I didn’t (which is appears you do) or if you were just an armchair aeroengineer.

[Omniscient]

@ElvisL1ves

The A300’s rudder is a notable exception. An airliner certainly can be broken up in the air by exceeding the flight envelope, for instance by entering high turbulence at above the maneuvering speed, or in an improperly-exited spin. Oh, um, aerospace engineer and private pilot here, and I never have the fish before flying.

In that case a plane flew into a wake vortex which completely lies outside of the general case. Fact is that general aviation craft are specifically designed so that under normal conditions pilot error cannot destroy the aircraft. Pitching the plane into a dive to exceed the maximum qualified speed or entering extremely turbulent air certainly can create extreme forces which may destroy the aircraft.

All I am arguing is that a amateur pilot couldn’t tear the plane apart by over-correcting on the controls. If he flies into a micro burst or a wake vortex all bets are off. The most experienced pilot would be just as dead as a novice in that situation.

[Sitnam]

I’ve played Battlefield 2 quite a few times so I know if I was in a war I’d be the next Rambo.

[VarlosZ]

Many people who fly regularly with private pilots get “Pinch Hitter” training - a few hours that’s enough to get down safely, but not full pilot training. It’s saved a few people.

An ex-boyfriend of my mother apparently has a great story about this (or, about why such training is a good idea). He was up for a spin with a friend of his who was pilot in the guy’s plane. In the middle of the flight, the friend stops talking mid-conversation, then turns and says, “I am so sorry,” and drops dead of a heart attack.

He was able to be talked down on the radio and landed safely, but those are some great last words given the circumstances.

[Broomstick]

@Omniscient

In that case a plane flew into a wake vortex which completely lies outside of the general case. Fact is that general aviation craft are specifically designed so that under normal conditions pilot error cannot destroy the aircraft.

Commercial airliners are not usually lumped under “general aviation aircraft”, at least in my area of aviation. They are certainly “civilian” aviation, though.

All I am arguing is that a amateur pilot couldn’t tear the plane apart by over-correcting on the controls. If he flies into a micro burst or a wake vortex all bets are off. The most experienced pilot would be just as dead as a novice in that situation.

Is there a physical limiter of some sort that would make it impossible for an amateur to slam the controls to the stops? Some sort computer that would ignore such inputs?

Because from my days both as a student pilot and watching other student pilots from the back seat, let me tell you, an amateur can do some pretty wild, bizarre, and unexpected stuff to the controls of an airplane. I think you are underestimating the capacity of bald apes to get into trouble. Granted, most folks are timid as unconscious sheep when it comes to airplane controls, but there are exceptions - I had a passenger once who I thought was going to get the two of us into Very Big Trouble despite a competent pilot (me) at the controls. It’s the exceptions who are going to be the ones with the guts to step forward and take those controls, not the sheep. Ask a flight instructor about how often his/her students attempt to kill their teacher. And the airplanes people typically take their first lessons in are FAR more forgiving of error than bigger, faster aircraft.