Autopilot at 30,000 ft and higher?
05-07-2016, 07:02 AM
#11
On Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2016
Posts: 14
Thanks for the reply's. I should mention that this is part of an ongoing debate about the Apollo landings and his full quote was this:
"Ask any airline pilot why it's necessary to have automation at 30,000 feet. They'll tell you that humans lack the dexterity to fly at that altitude, due to thin air.
The Moon has no atmosphere. The LEM would have needed full automation and it didn't have it. Ergo, the LEM never landed on the Moon, since by NASA's own admission, Neil Armstrong used manual to land."
I usually try avoiding getting into it too much with these nuts but this line of reasoning he's using is so ridiculous that I couldn't help myself.
"Ask any airline pilot why it's necessary to have automation at 30,000 feet. They'll tell you that humans lack the dexterity to fly at that altitude, due to thin air.
The Moon has no atmosphere. The LEM would have needed full automation and it didn't have it. Ergo, the LEM never landed on the Moon, since by NASA's own admission, Neil Armstrong used manual to land."
I usually try avoiding getting into it too much with these nuts but this line of reasoning he's using is so ridiculous that I couldn't help myself.
05-07-2016, 07:46 AM
#13
On Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2016
Posts: 14
Originally Posted by tomgoodman
"There was a demon that lived in the air. They said whoever challenged him would die. Their controls would freeze up, their planes would buffet wildly, and they would disintegrate." 
05-07-2016, 09:03 AM
#15
On Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2016
Posts: 14
Originally Posted by PerfInit
Just in case the OP is not familiar with RVSM airspace, that means "reduced vertical separation minimums". Essentially 1000' vertical separation between aircraft. The mandatory use of autopilot in RVSM airspace is a safety risk mitigation requirement to help prevent altitude deviations.
Thanks for the info. I was unfamiliar with RVSM but I want you guys/gals to know I will always make an attempt to search online for something I don't know. As expected with any line of professional work, a lot of job specific words or expressions to learn and I don't want any of you to feel you need to go out of your way explaining any of it. Of course if you want to, that's another matter and I will always appreciate any info posted by anybody.
I read Mike Mullane's book "Riding Rockets" recently and it was quite amusing to read how a Phantom RIO with years of combat experience had to adapt to the NASA specific jargon although, I'm sure, he was probably exaggerating it a bit for the book. Great book btw for anybody who might be interested. His account of STS-41-D's pad abort and subsequent delays that delayed his first mission into space by 2 months was quite the eye opener. I couldn't believe it when I read about how the astronaut families were pretty well on their own with delayed launches when it came to finding accommodations. It's since been corrected but that just seemed nuts.
I should mention that I've always been interested about aviation and everything associated with it. I'm Canadian and was in air cadets for 5 years hoping to eventually get a gliding and/or pilot training scholarship but my eyes were my undoing. Probably for the best because I really suck at flight simulators. lol. For example with Falcon 4, I spent countless hours trying to do a proper air re-fueling hook up. Spent all kinds of money thinking that with the best Thrustmaster joystick, throttle and rudder pedals I would eventually get it. Wrong!! lol.
05-07-2016, 09:09 AM
#16
On Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2016
Posts: 14
Originally Posted by Hacker15e
Never try to discuss with a moon-landing-denier, because they're not actually interested in your opinion or any evidence that doesn't match their opinion.
Yes, your right of course but unfortunately I can't seem to help myself. I will come to my senses for awhile and only respond to people who are genuinely unsure about the landings and ask for info that would help them decide. However, as mentioned before, I will come across something too ridiculous to ignore and find myself at it again for a few weeks till I come to senses again. Hey, at least I've managed to restrain myself from the 9/11 truthers and flat-Earthers. lol
05-07-2016, 09:17 AM
#17
On Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2016
Posts: 14
Originally Posted by Hacker15e
Well, I guess I'll have to strike all of that T-38 cross-country time at FL390 (hand flying at .9M) from my logbook, since apparently it isn't possible.
I do love the duality of you friend's argument though; on one hand, "humans lack the dexterity to fly at that altitude, due to thin air", and on the other, military guys can/do it because "they say and do what they are told".
I do love the duality of you friend's argument though; on one hand, "humans lack the dexterity to fly at that altitude, due to thin air", and on the other, military guys can/do it because "they say and do what they are told".
05-07-2016, 01:12 PM
#18
Just Plane Stupid
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Captain
Posts: 458
I have hand flown the 20 series Learjet at altitudes FL410 and above many a time since the autopilots back then were unreliable. At .78m 1° of pitch change equated to a 800fpm climb/descent rate if I can remember.
05-07-2016, 01:31 PM
#19
On Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2016
Posts: 14
Originally Posted by HeavyDriver
I have hand flown the 20 series Learjet at altitudes FL410 and above many a time since the autopilots back then were unreliable. At .78m 1° of pitch change equated to a 800fpm climb/descent rate if I can remember.
