quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

As awesome as ForeFlight is (Thank goodness I’ll never do another Jepps checklist!!!), no more free wrapping paper. Sigh...

Once I switched to the iPad for enroute and approach, I still kept paper charts within reach, even if I was not using them as the primary source. Not sure whether I did this out of long habit (instrument rated since 1965), or belt-and-suspenders, insurance against the electronic version taking a dump.

By the way, ForeFlight is great, but it ain't cheap, unless your company is paying for it.

A better deal is WingX Pro, if you are a CFI or military pilot. Much better price, as in FREE for CFI and military.

And for the non-instrument pilots, the "VFR only" version, which does not include instrument approach charts, is only a buck a year.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by White Phosphorus:
Don't airplanes pretty much land themselves these days?

For your sake, I hope that's an attempt at humor.

Not at all - I wish it was a joke.

Google aircraft autoland system. The proponents of this system make some very bold claims.

V.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

As awesome as ForeFlight is (Thank goodness I’ll never do another Jepps checklist!!!), no more free wrapping paper. Sigh...

Once I switched to the iPad for enroute and approach, I still kept paper charts within reach, even if I was not using them as the primary source. Not sure whether I did this out of long habit (instrument rated since 1965), or belt-and-suspenders, insurance against the electronic version taking a dump.

By the way, ForeFlight is great, but it ain't cheap, unless your company is paying for it.

A better deal is WingX Pro, if you are a CFI or military pilot. Much better price, as in FREE for CFI and military.

And for the non-instrument pilots, the "VFR only" version, which does not include instrument approach charts, is only a buck a year.

That’s good to know, Thanks V-Tail! I thought ForeFlight was really cheap as the whole US, parts of Mexico, and parts of the Caribbean was about a third of what I had been paying for US F05 coverage, but free sounds way better.

quote:

Originally posted by White Phosphorus:
Don't airplanes pretty much land themselves these days?

Well you do have the powers that be and "experts" out there pushing for cars and trucks driving themselves with no human interaction. No reason to think the same people won't be pushing for airplanes to do the same thing. I'm not in favor of either one personally.

quote:

Originally posted by White Phosphorus:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by White Phosphorus:
Don't airplanes pretty much land themselves these days?

For your sake, I hope that's an attempt at humor.

Not at all - I wish it was a joke.

Google aircraft autoland system. The proponents of this system make some very bold claims.

V.

From pilots I have spoken with who have made landings with autoland, it is pretty rarely used, and the hardest part is taxiing off the runway after autoland stops the airplane. Taxiing can be a bear when you can’t see. Whole lotta stress though, a whole lot of judgement up to the point of engaging the system, and a whole lot of watching like a hawk monitoring, spring-loaded to take the airplane back and go around. The number of pilots I’d trust to make a Cat III approach with autoland is a whole lot less than the number I’d trust to fly a Cat I or Cat II approach.

quote:

Originally posted by JoseyWales2:

quote:

Originally posted by White Phosphorus:
Don't airplanes pretty much land themselves these days?

Well you do have the powers that be and "experts" out there pushing for cars and trucks driving themselves with no human interaction. No reason to think the same people won't be pushing for airplanes to do the same thing. I'm not in favor of either one personally.

Monkeys can be taught to fly, and land, airplanes. It's been done. When everything is going right, flying a modern commercial airplane is pretty easy. The problem is when things go wrong. The recent 777 in Denver blowing an engine is one example, SWA blowing an engine out of LGA couple years ago is another. You only have to look to recent foreign airline accidents to see how a breakdown in crew communication/coordination, poor training, and lack of experience were direct contributors to those crashes. There's just very little margin for error in aviation, especially when conditions get challenging.

The problem isn't United attempting to recruit more diverse pilots through education and outreach programs. The problem is setting an artificial target that has no basis in reality. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if they're falling short of their goal there will be internal pressure to lower the standards to push people through. This is exactly what's happening in the military now that most if not all occupations are open to women. They're not meeting the physical standards for the more difficult jobs in infantry and special ops, so there's pressure to reduce overall standards and/or make separate ones for women to get more to pass.

quote:

Originally posted by aileron:
Guppy is right, there are a whole bunch of pilots out there who wouldn't know what to do with a book of Jepps, the low or high enroute foldouts, or the "joy" in updating the book every 28 days.

Reading that started an involuntary twitching...I'm okay now. Europe binders were the worst!

They are just competing now to see who can come up tithe the stupidest most dangerous ideas.

quote:

Originally posted by Top Gun Supply:

quote:

Originally posted by aileron:
Guppy is right, there are a whole bunch of pilots out there who wouldn't know what to do with a book of Jepps, the low or high enroute foldouts, or the "joy" in updating the book every 28 days.

Reading that started an involuntary twitching...I'm okay now. Europe binders were the worst!

Try maintaining 20 full international sets...

Presently I use Jepp View with the full international coverage on an ipad, and maintain my own US jeppview, for personal use.

I prefer paper, but don't like maintaining it.

It's great when you arrive at the airplane to find that someone inadvertently threw away Afghanistan...

Just had this discussion with a friend of mine regarding the demographics of airline pilots.

As others have said it is an overwhelmingly male, and mostly white group.

This is not because the airlines have not been recruiting females and minorities. They have been, for years. They even have expos/conferences every year that focus on women and minorities. Look up OBAP and WIA.

And it is not a skill issue. My last assignment in the Air Force was as a pilot training instructor. During that time I flew with 6 female instructors who were good sticks, sharp, patient with students and ideal to continue flying. All 6 at one point got hired by a major airline. Right now none - zero - are still actively flying. They all at some point decided that the lifestyle - half of your time away from home in hotels, dealing with recurrent training, schedule changes, whatever - was not for them and they quit.

So for United to set some sort of artificial number is nonsense. But also notice the legalese they used - 50% of the pilots they TRAIN will meet these requirements. Just because they enter training does not mean they will end up on the flight deck of a mainline jet.

I'm not saying what United is doing is not PC nonsense - it absolutely is. But sticking it out in the airline industry is a very self-selecting career and is not for everyone.