Autopilot at 30,000 ft and higher?
05-07-2016 | 02:15 PM
#21
Thread Starter
On Reserve
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
I agree. He claims to be a pilot btw and made a bunch of noise about his experience but I never asked him what exactly it involved. Anyway, when I challenged him to come either here or pprune, he made all kinds of bs excuses. obviously one of those blusterboy posers.
05-07-2016 | 02:31 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,200
Likes: 43
From: Gear slinger
Having a bit of an argument with someone that seems to think the following:
"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."
Took a bit of back and forthing and now he relented a bit with this:
"So let me qualify my remarks about needing automation at altitude:
Today, yes, planes with fly-by-wire can fly manual at 30,000 feet."
He's still adamant that manual flight above 30,000 feet without fly-by-wire can only be done with automation.
I've challenged him to post on a forum like this but he's reluctant to do so. Seems pretty silly I know but it be great to hear from people who do this for a living. No sense bringing up anything about military flying since he'll just brush it off with how they say and do what they are told.
"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."
Took a bit of back and forthing and now he relented a bit with this:
"So let me qualify my remarks about needing automation at altitude:
Today, yes, planes with fly-by-wire can fly manual at 30,000 feet."
He's still adamant that manual flight above 30,000 feet without fly-by-wire can only be done with automation.
I've challenged him to post on a forum like this but he's reluctant to do so. Seems pretty silly I know but it be great to hear from people who do this for a living. No sense bringing up anything about military flying since he'll just brush it off with how they say and do what they are told.
05-07-2016 | 03:07 PM
#23
Thread Starter
On Reserve
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Just want to make sure it's okay with everybody first. He hasn't had anybody else from the hoaxhead crowd chiming in with support so I don't think there would be a sudden influx of conspiratards invading this site.
05-08-2016 | 01:09 AM
#26
Banned
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
05-08-2016 | 01:48 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,816
Likes: 5
From: retired 767(dl)
How in the world were you able to get the three holer to FL420? Like sitting in a bathtub on top of a flagpole.
05-08-2016 | 07:18 AM
#28
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,167
Likes: 803
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
CRJ operators commonly require AP use much above F180 or F200. It can be flown by hand, and if the AP is deferred you can do it up to RVSM space. But it's a little mushy, and if you were near the operational ceiling for the weight and conditions you could put it behind the power curve by over-controlling and creating too much drag. That has more to do with being under-powered than with control-ability.
05-08-2016 | 08:24 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,741
Likes: 1
From: Sr. VP of button pushing
It was a ferry leg in a -15 200. Pre RVSM days, figured if we were ever going to do it that was the day, got a block 41-43. Can't remember but it wasn't too tight on the speeds. My understanding is Valsan aircraft have no problem going straight to FL 400, 42 shouldn't be much harder for them.
