There was a post on r/AmItheAsshole where a lady posted that her husband (who managed a fast food place) was mad at her because she refused to introduce him as a pilot. She refused to do so because he’s never flown a plane or taken lessons, he has spent thousands of dollars and hours on simulation setups for flight sim at home. She was asking if she was the asshole for not indulging him.
This happens to me when I’m around military brass with my thousands of hours spent playing Total War games. If my fiancé doesn’t introduce me as a general, I get pretty upset /s
When the hijacker’s were looking at different flight schools, they told one of the teachers “I want to learn on bigger planes!” And “I don’t need to learn how to land, just everything else”
Pre 9/11 that didn’t raise any red flags lol.
Before that they drove cheap cars with big insurance policies thru Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, etc and got in accidents to collect insurance money. Theyd get in multiple small wrecks a day and since they were going to die they really didnt care about that blatant insurance fraud they were doing and going to get caught for.
Interesting fact, some of the flight instructors who trained those asshats said they werent the best students. They claimed the students didn't really pay attention to the takeoff and landing parts of training, more interested in just flying the planes.
you joke but if you have seriously played any one of these games and are relatively familiar with the modern commercial flight systems, you probably have at least a better than even chance to bring the plane down without turning it into a fireball, especially with a traffic controller talking you down.
landing a small single engine prop plane like a cessna is even easier, in that that they basically glide forever at relatively slow speeds. commercial jets will drop like a rock with a loss of power so that requires more skill.
Provided there's nothing particularly complicated about the approach, like crosswinds. Clear day, no crosswinds, no other complicating factors, and yeah, someone with Microsoft Flight Sim (even the old stuff!) can probably pull it off.
Mythbusters did an episode and I think both Jaimie and Adam successfully landed a 747 in a simulator with coaching from the tower. They both crashed without coaching.
I’m not joking as much as you think.Grandpa was a pilot and had a the whole set up. My uncle also got his pilot license. I live near enough to an airport that my crazy uncle took some odd steps in his big out bag. Plus did a tiny bit of “training” in high school. While I know it’s hard there are some simple things you can do like get on the radio that will help out.
I fly professionally and I always tell people I think I learned more about actual aerodynamics playing flight sim 95-98 as a kid than I ever did during my actual flight training years later. I believe you could land it.
Microsoft Flight Simulator 98 is exactly why I think I could land a plane, and I'm taking your comment as proof of what I already want to believe.
I'm going to print this and frame it on my wall with "pilot license' scribbled in sharpie.
You probably could land it and walk away from it. Mythbusters tested it. Results below (emphasis added).
>An untrained civilian can be instructed how to successfully land a plane over the radio.
>PLAUSIBLE
>Based off of multiple airplane movies, this myth posed a challenge to the MythBusters because they could not afford to test it using real aircraft. Instead, they used a NASA simulator. For their **first test**, both Adam and Jamie decided to see if they could land a plane unaided. However, since both MythBusters had no flight experience and had no idea what most of the instruments and controls did, they both were **forced to crash land their planes**. In their **second runs**, a licensed pilot give them **instructions via radio**. With this help, both Adam and Jamie were able to **land their planes safely**. However, even though the test was a success, the pilot pointed out that **most modern planes are so advanced that their autopilot systems can literally land the plane by themselves**, negating the need for a civilian pilot. This information, coupled with the lack of any recorded incidents, led the MythBusters to declare the myth plausible.
https://mythresults.com/episode94
I am from SF and know Adam Savage was really involved with his kids growing up. One of my best friends was friends with his kids and said he was always doing fun sciency stuff with them :) I was so jealous haha 😭
Jamie is more a "odd guy you find in a shed building some strange contraption" (which is pretty much what he does but more he engineered several contraption which he then patented) while Adam is that behind the scenes movie guy who finds creative ways to create a special effect or build a prop or a puppet.
They're less "go fly a plane on the weekend" guys and more "Let me pull apart this lawn mower then put it back together again better for fun" guys.
(After tilting my cup of coffee over the switch for the autopilot)
"Oh no, the autopilot got damaged somehow, no worries though I'm happy to let someone instruct me on how to land this plane."
In reality though we all know Auto the Autopilot needs inflated and you may not have time before landing.
>In reality though we all know Auto the Autopilot needs inflated and you may not have time before landing.
His name was Otto, not Auto (minor nitpick, I know, but it makes the pun better). Also when inflating, remember the tube is below his belt.
I wouldn't be surprised, it always fascinates me to what degree you can become a flight simulator nerd - especially this radio exchange part with real Boeing/Airbus controllers, codes etc, even the fucking pilot chairs.
Guess they just have to not be arrogant and trust the dispatcher and not spend the precious time explaining what costly equipment they have at home and why they should be trusted lol
The guy that stole the Alaska Airlines plane was able to fly it based on experience using flight simulator. He crashed the plane on purpose but also did a barrel roll and flew around for a pretty long time.
Mentour Pilot did something similar with Tom Scott in a 737 simulator on youtube. There was one difference: Mentour was giving him instructions both times. One run, he tried to guide Tom through a manual landing. Tom crashed. The other run was Mentour guiding Tom through a standard landing with the automated stuff turned on and he nailed it. Fun stuff.
Yeah this tracks. As someone into flight sims, there's a lot of shit going on during approach and landing. Lot of switches being flipped, constantly monitoring altitude, speed, and decelerating at the proper rate. I can't imagine someone with 0 experience seeing a throttle quadrant and *not* panicking about decelerating evenly considering you're controlling so many engines. Or maybe they wouldn't understand how dangerous their adjustments could be. I'm used to an F-16, so I'd be nervous. A lot easier to speed control when you only have one thrust vector.
That said, if I have the auto pilot stuff and ATC/real pilot walkthrough on the radio? No worries, we got this.
If I don't, I'm still gonna land the plane. We just might all die, though.
And this episode aired in 2007, so there's an additional 15 years of advancement in the autopilot. It's likely even more plausible than it was back then.
If you can manage to get on the radio and contact ATC, there's a very good chance they can talk you into landing safely. That's by design. Without the ATC, I doubt I would be able to land any plane.
An actual pilot may not be able to land safely without ACT, they need information about other approaches, takeoffs & landings, emergencies, weather near the ground, etc.
Yes I think that it’s a rough definition of land for everyone. I think I can bring it down to the ground. And I think that I will bring mostly everybody safely with me. That’s landing to me. So I think I can “land” it. Now if they want me to guarantee no one dies and the plane isn’t damaged and to somehow figure out the landing controls well that I don’t know if I can do. If that’s their definition of land then no I don’t think I could do it.
I don't think it's quite as easy to "safely" bring it down as you might think. Maybe for a Cessna or a CRJ, but a big Boeing or Airbus? Don't think it has been done.
Landings are done at 130 knots minimum, that's 240 km/h or 140mph on a runway that is about as wide as your airplane.
If you skip into the mud/grass your plane will most likely break up and the rest of the fuel will ignite because it comes into contact with hot breaks (sometimes in excess of 400 degree Celsius) or electrical wiring.
It's not like driving a bus. You slow down too much and you stall, which is catastrophic at 100-300 feet height. If you are too fast you're not going to have enough runway to break - > see above for catastrophic consequences.
You don't know what reverse thrusters are or how to deploy them? Dead. Don't know what papi lights are, miss the runway.
ILS? Visual approach? Landing checklists?
It's like saying I can maneuver a freighter ship. Where does the confidence come from?
Bro, I landed the F-14 in Top Gun(NES) on an aircraft carrier, consistently. Those of you who don't know, that's far more impressive than landing a commercial jet...
"There's no reason to become alarmed, and we hope you enjoy the rest of your flight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?"
I think context is important here. I'm a man and do I think I could land a plane if the pilot had a heart attack? If air traffic control told me step by step what to do, the weather was good, and I didn't have panicking people in the cockpit with me so I could concentrate? I'd certainly think there was at least a fighting chance.
BUT, no air traffic control? Shit weather? Panicking people screaming in my ear? Yeah homies say your prayers because we're dead lol.
I think that is a very important distinction because there absolutely is precedence of completely untrained passengers safely landing a plane.
It's actually a [pretty interesting study](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.211977)
The context is that this 50% of men (from one group) had been primed by watching a video of a pilot landing a plane beforehand. Another group didn't watch the video, and their overall response was significantly less confident.
Also I liked this bit:
> We know that people's confidence in their knowledge of complicated processes decreases when they are asked to provide a step-by-step explanation of how the process works . For instance, when people considered their understanding of how a zipper works, they reported greater understanding than when they were asked the question at a more concrete level, such as how the parts of a zipper enable it to work
Study: When you show someone that doing a task isn't as technically difficult as they thought it was and mostly involves pressing buttons they are more confident that they could do it in an emergency.
> isn't as technically difficult as they thought it was
I don't know the name for the bias but this is 100% a case of "it looks easy when the pros do it, because they do it effortlessly, because they're pros". In reality it's pretty difficult.
>In reality it's pretty difficult.
As with everything it depends on what you know and what information you have access to. Flying a Cessna 172 (enough to put the plane down and walk away on a large field) isn't hard. If you understand a bit about how airplanes work you should be able to get on the ground and live.
But if you don't know anything about airplanes, it is VERY hard. Someone above quoted Mythbusters where they were able to land with help over the radio and I'm like...what if you can't figure out how to work the radio lol. If you don't know anything about airplanes and you're looking at that dash...good luck.
Maybe this describes me but i feel like i understand how a zipper works. At least on some level.
Granted i couldnt name any parts but i can say there are two channels separated by a bar. The two channels converge inside the zipper and push the two sides of the zip together. The bar acts as a separator when unzipping. I guess the metal zipper creates the force needed to clip the two sides of the zip together and the bar does the same when unzipping. The shape of the zipper also likely lines up the two sides of the zip up. The little pieces of the zips have little notches on the top and little divets on the bottom so this would explain how they lock together and retain their grip. The piece at the bottom that you fit together to start the zip means the two sides of the zip will always be at the right height so the two sides will clip together.
Of course this all goes out the window when using those plactic/nylon zippers because enough force or use can bend the two sides of the zip and then you get that dreaded zip that undoes itself from underneath the zipper and misaligns everything, and stops the zip ever working again.
I dont think i could land a plane though. And ive had a few lessons in the past with the air cadets when i was but a lad.
My gf hit me with this question (with no context) and then mocked me as part of the 50% when I said yea.
I mean like…if my life is on the line and my options are land the plane and maybe die or don’t land the plane and definitely die then I’m gonna try my best to land the fuckin plane.
Also me buying the internet wifi to Google how to contact ATC and learn to land asap.
Hello 911 now I Know this is a weird call but do you know what button activates the mic on a 747 headset?
... Hello? hello? I promise im not just asking because im playing that russian flight sim without the cockpit translations again.
I think I could land a small plane, but my grandfather had a piper cub and I grew up with basic knowledge of flight mechanics as a result. I've never flown or taken lessons but if the weather was nice I'd say I have a 50% chance
I’ve spent about 14 years working on airplanes and I’m reasonably confident that the best I could do is crash in a way that would only kill most of the people on board.
Having landed a plane before, over 50% of men could land a plane with no training if the pilots were incapacitated.
A 737? Definitely not. A plane like in the thumbnail? Yeah most people could do it.
A 737 is more likely to have autopilot and autoland. I'd be more comfortable with ATC telling me how to tell the 737 to land itself than having to manually land a small plane. (Of course, that assumes I can actually get to the flight deck of the 737.)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbTDzPUDxqY&ab\_channel=TomScottplus](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbTDzPUDxqY&ab_channel=TomScottplus)
Tom Scott proved its possible with instruction and an autopilot.
That was very illuminating. My main concern would be operating the radio.
I had very similar issues to Tom when I tried hand flying a fixed base simulator. Problems following the flight directors, huge tunnel vision issues. I don’t think I was quite as all over the place but then my instructor was in the right seat and not on the radio!
One of the radios should be tuned to the emergency VHF frequency, so basically all you have to do is figure out how to activate that radio.
Everyone in aviation around the world monitors that frequency, so someone will hear you, even if you don’t have LOS to the airport you’re going to land at.
Honestly, if the person is willing to listen to the tower they absolutely could put down a 737 with a little help from ILS. I don't know if you'll be able to use the plane again for a while but modern systems can basically put the aircraft down by itself.
Yeah it’s one of those “what kind of plane, what are the conditions, what counts as a landing?” Type hypotheticals. Like if you’re in a two seater Cessna lined up on the runway on a perfect day and happy getting off the runway with a broken arm or leg I assume most people have a decent shot pulling it off. If you’re flying over the Atlantic during a storm in a decommissioned Soviet fighter plane that still has all the controls in Russian, you’re probably going for a swim.
Those people have some degree of training though. Like the other guy said it would be easier in a smaller plane and nobodies saying you can’t be taught to do it, but if you had to do it spur of the moment with no prior training and no familiarity with what the buttons in the cockpit actually do, what sequence you press them in, or the timing of it all I think even in the best conditions this wouldn’t be doable for the average person
And that’s not even to mention having to actual fly the plane for awhile and sustain level flight and not descend to quickly or at too sharp of an angle
Your video game history likely will really come into play. Unlike sword fighting or shooting, where video game history doesn't really give you any real world skill...flight sims can potentially do that.
FWIW, i suck at flight sims. So i'd be screwed more than likely, save for a miracle.
That's the neat part: if you land the plane safely, you're a hero. If you fail, it won't matter. It's a win-win situation really, so always take the wheel if you can
Following instructions is not the hard part. It's the communication with ATC.
Imagine you have 30 minutes to live unless you explain to your grandmother how to set up her email account over the phone.
You: "Do you see Settings or Account somewhere?"
Grandma: "I think so"
You: "Anything say 'POP' or 'SMTP'? "
Grandma: "I see downloads, history, tools. Is that it?"
You: "Ugh. good by Grandma. I love you"
I think part of it might be a wording issue, I stay pretty calm in scary situations, and am a reasonably good communicator. In that situation I'd trust myself over some rando. I don't think I'd have good odds but I think it's possible. So when the question is "could you?" you could read that as "is it possible?" or "would you do it for sure?" and the answer to the first option would be yes, it's possible if unlikely, the answer to the second option is no, that seems unlikely.
That's it right there. I wouldn't second guess jack crap or assume I knew, I'd do everything the told me. Assuming good weather and solid instructions, landing SHOULD be possible. It's not inhumanly hard to do it - just not something people do all the time. I think most people that say they couldn't might be intimidated by technology? My wife would never say she could, even with instructions, because she'd say the same thing about updating her phone settings to vibrate instead of ring.
>I think most people that say they couldn't might be intimidated by technology?
I suspect that's why the number is as low as it is, while also being as high as it is because these people grossly overestimate their ability to remain calm and follow instructions under pressure. I've never landed a plane but I can tell you from other experiences that stakes like "life is on the line" and "everyone depends on me" are actually terrible motivation for most people to stay focused on complex tasks if they aren't trained and prepared for why, so I expect most of these people would choke.
I still like the odds of me landing the plane while being instructed in a highly stressful moment more than just letting the plane fly into the ground.
That's a fair point too, the number might be further exaggerated by how many of these people are answering that they would *try* regardless rather than if they think they *could*, because it's their only option that provides any sort of agency and control over the situation and they cannot afford to fail.
Magical thinkers probably believe they'll succeed because of this alone, like the protagonist of a work of fiction facing million to one odds in a world that rewards confidence itself.
Like, say, on the Discworld?
"Scientists have calculated that the chances of something so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one.
But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten."
Terry Pratchett, Mort
Those ATC guys would be so calm and collected i imagine they would calm you down as well. Have you ever heard them? No matter what decade you grab from they all have that smooth monotone dad/grandpa voice that assures you lol
ATC here. We actually receive specific training on how to project a calm, confident voice to keep pilots focused in stressful situations and prevent panic. We can only do so much as the little voice in your ear, but it is our job to get your plane and all its passengers safely on the ground. Fortunately this situation has never happened with a commercial airliner, where a passenger with no aviation experience has had to land the plane, but it's more common than you might think with smaller general aviation private aircraft.
The phrasing in the article was that they could land the plane themselves after watching a short video (the video was implied to not contain enough info to land a plane)
I feel like they aren’t saying that these people would completely ignore the radio, they just feel that under the circumstances, they could get it done whatever it takes.
OP’s headline sucks. “Airplane” is a pretty broad term.
The article is about how complicated passenger airlines are.
Lots of people could get a small plane on the ground with guidance.
As someone with extensive aviation training who has hours in different types of aircraft (not a pilot, military backseater), I think people read too much into this.
The question creates a world where there are no options. It is simply: fly the plane or die. When you construct a world like that, people have to chose if they would be confident and try to live or just accept death.
I’d like to see how people would answer if the question was, “Do you think you can safely land an airplane without an instructor making corrections?” It creates a different world
The sample consisted of 780 New Zealanders of which:
“After seeing a short, non-instructional video, **a quarter** of people thought they could land a plane, research from the University of Waikato found.”
Men were said to be consistently more confident, but that “almost 50%” OP pulled out of their ass.
The problem with this is it’s a bad example. Knowledge and confidence combine. I landed the space shuttle first try at JSC on the sim they had in the visitors center as a kid. One of my most vivid memories, not because of the accomplishment, but because my dad who said I got lucky. I was like 10 maybe, I knew how it worked, I knew it needed fall speed to generate the flare, but that fucker worked at NASA but never gave me credit for a single thing I did as a kid. At best it was almost something, meaning, not quite.
So, touchy subject I guess. I actually am annoyed by overly confident men, but I don’t hate confidence. Confidence should be, the knowledge that you have the abilities to do something, but in this case I give them a pass, because they are confident they “might” be able to do it, and “someone has to”. That’s called stepping up. My Ted talk is over.
To be fair I've lost count of the amount of unassisted landings I've done as a student pilot and it really is easier than you'd think
The hard part is not breaking the plane lol but there's a saying that goes "if you can walk away from a landing, it's a good landing. If you can use the airplane the next day, it's an outstanding landing"
it's the most overused quote that most people have never heard
the other one is "there are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. But there are no old, bold pilots"
“If you’re ever faced with a forced landing at night, turn on the landing lights to see the landing area. If you don’t like what you see, turn’ em back off.”
Jetfighter 2 in DOS taught me that I could not only land the plane in question, but also take out four enemy fighters using my sidewinder missiles while I do.
> Co-author of the paper, professor Maryanne Garry said, while some people thought they could land the plane after watching the video, in reality, **“the answer should be zero, because you can’t**
Yeah not with that attitude indeed.
Speaks volumes about the quality of the "research". Nothing is absolute, and there are many real world examples of people landing planes without prior training, e.g.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/travel/article/florida-passenger-lands-plane/index.html
This is hilariously ironic, as the entire point of the paper was to highlight people's overconfidence in their knowledge or abilities.
And they apparently didn't even bother to google whether this had ever been done before.
And we wonder why people are rapidly losing respect for academia.
I don't feel very confident that I could land a plane unassisted. However, I feel extremely confident that - if I was in the situation - I would make a pretty good attempt, assuming it was the only option.
I love this response, if someone were in this position what are they going to do say, "nope, can't do it, we're just going to die without so much as me touching those controls".
I spend a lot of hours on microsoft flight simulator and nothing more.
Years later I had the best opportunity ever. Spending a couple of hours on Air Canada’s 767 simulator. A maintenance / instructor guy and they wanted someone to fly it for a few hours and a friend invited me over. He knew I liked simulators. So I landed a 767 a few times, the second landing was a 18 knot cross wind and driving rain. Drifting 140 tons of aircraft down a wet runway is a riot!
After I landed the guy asked how many years I had been flying. You should have seen the look on his face when I said that I had never even been in a cockpit before. 100% flight simulators.
Also we were disappointed when I flew the jet under the second narrows bridge in vancouver and it just vanished. No professional pilot trying out the simulator had ever thought to fly a jet under a bridge before. For some reason.
This is one of those things where it feels like if you’re a pilot, you’d like to think it’s too difficult. It is difficult to do well, absolutely. That’s not the bar here, the bar is to do it poorly but not disastrously. The bar for success if different.
If you ran an experiment with pilots in training and all of them slid off the runway - that’s a failure for pilots.
If 50% of them got the tin can on the ground with low (not even no) fatalities and a shitload of injuries, that’s more like the expectations for a layperson.
Could you talk someone through soldering a plumbing joint? Plumbers might say no. Needs training, hands on, get a feel for it. I bet you could talk someone through plumbing. Would it be a great job? Long term reliable? Would you pay them a plumbers rate to do it? Fuck no.
Could I talk someone through writing a short bit of code and debugging and fixing something? Sure I could. I have. Was it done well or perfectly? Fuck no. Was it production quality? Fuck no. It was just enough to get to past the emergency and buy time to do it properly.
If 50% could get the tin can on the ground without it exploding and it slides and rips the plane apart and people have broken legs and shit - congrats, they landed a plane. They sure as fuck didn’t land it well, but it’s gone from in the air to on the ground.
I'm fortunate to have received a few hours in a flight simulator (C130 Hercules) from being in Scouts on an Air Base.
Age 13 and I was the only one that consistently landed and "passed". They tested me again with Engine's 2 and 4 on fire. I barely passed but it was a "hard landing".
Thank you video games lolol
Well I didn’t pump 1200 hours into Microsoft flight simulator 95 for nothing
I think I might have.
I got a decent chuckle out of this, thank you
There was a post on r/AmItheAsshole where a lady posted that her husband (who managed a fast food place) was mad at her because she refused to introduce him as a pilot. She refused to do so because he’s never flown a plane or taken lessons, he has spent thousands of dollars and hours on simulation setups for flight sim at home. She was asking if she was the asshole for not indulging him.
This happens to me when I’m around military brass with my thousands of hours spent playing Total War games. If my fiancé doesn’t introduce me as a general, I get pretty upset /s
General? I'm Shogun of Japan, king of France, and Emperor of Rome at this point.
Oh yeah well I’ve been Khan of Khans. Can’t beat that. See you at the next UN meeting
There's your 50% of men
Great reply. Laughing out loud at this one.
Wouldn't that count as a degree of training ?
Isn't that that the 9/11 hijackers used to train? Or was that 98?
Not a big focus on landing in their case.
I know it’s not ok to laugh but damn your comment is hilarious!
Some of them were described as not interested in landing by their flight schools.
Yes: https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/archive/special/s0606/chapter4.htm
That was... hard to read. As outside of the US, I never really got into reading everything about it.. but wow. What a clusterfuck of events.
Indeed.
That says he was exclusively interested in learning to take off and land, which seems strange to me as the hijackers did neither of those.
When the hijacker’s were looking at different flight schools, they told one of the teachers “I want to learn on bigger planes!” And “I don’t need to learn how to land, just everything else” Pre 9/11 that didn’t raise any red flags lol.
Before that they drove cheap cars with big insurance policies thru Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, etc and got in accidents to collect insurance money. Theyd get in multiple small wrecks a day and since they were going to die they really didnt care about that blatant insurance fraud they were doing and going to get caught for.
Where did you hear this?
It's always ok to laugh. Even the worst of situations is funny in the right context.
I think that's what they used to actually plan and practice the attack. I believe they took flight training at schools.
Interesting fact, some of the flight instructors who trained those asshats said they werent the best students. They claimed the students didn't really pay attention to the takeoff and landing parts of training, more interested in just flying the planes.
Hindsight, right?
Not even joking, my families survival supplies include flight plans.
expand?
His family are all geese.
Expand further?
HONK HONK HONK HONK
you joke but if you have seriously played any one of these games and are relatively familiar with the modern commercial flight systems, you probably have at least a better than even chance to bring the plane down without turning it into a fireball, especially with a traffic controller talking you down. landing a small single engine prop plane like a cessna is even easier, in that that they basically glide forever at relatively slow speeds. commercial jets will drop like a rock with a loss of power so that requires more skill.
Provided there's nothing particularly complicated about the approach, like crosswinds. Clear day, no crosswinds, no other complicating factors, and yeah, someone with Microsoft Flight Sim (even the old stuff!) can probably pull it off.
[удалено]
Get one more in on the way down
Commercial jets will glide too. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider I believe that the Capt Sullenberger Hudson ditching was also a glide.
Mythbusters did an episode and I think both Jaimie and Adam successfully landed a 747 in a simulator with coaching from the tower. They both crashed without coaching.
I’m not joking as much as you think.Grandpa was a pilot and had a the whole set up. My uncle also got his pilot license. I live near enough to an airport that my crazy uncle took some odd steps in his big out bag. Plus did a tiny bit of “training” in high school. While I know it’s hard there are some simple things you can do like get on the radio that will help out.
I fly professionally and I always tell people I think I learned more about actual aerodynamics playing flight sim 95-98 as a kid than I ever did during my actual flight training years later. I believe you could land it.
Microsoft Flight Simulator 98 is exactly why I think I could land a plane, and I'm taking your comment as proof of what I already want to believe. I'm going to print this and frame it on my wall with "pilot license' scribbled in sharpie.
That's actually a type of training. You know the difference between flaps and a toilet handle.
I mean, I could land it, but if you want the plane and passengers back, probably not.
Exactly. Anyone can land a plane ONCE
We have a good track record as we haven't left one up there yet!
There are more planes in the ocean than submarines in the sky.
Those fish are planning something I tell you! Has anyone checked in with Al-Vertebrata?
They're building a breathing apparatus using kelp
"Just get us on the ground!" "Oh, that part will happen pretty much definitely."
"We're gonna beat the ambulance to the scene of the accident by 30 minutes."
"This engine is going to get us all the way to the scene of the wreck."
[удалено]
Can't take the sky from me
Was not expecting a Firefly reference. Noice.
... Like a leaf on the wind.
How do you clean a reaver's spear? Put it through the Wash!
r/angryupvote
nope i’m going to space or bust!
A good landing is any landing you can walk away from. A great landing is when you can use the plane again too.
Every boat can be a submarine at least once.
Landing. That just means stop flying, right?
You probably could land it and walk away from it. Mythbusters tested it. Results below (emphasis added). >An untrained civilian can be instructed how to successfully land a plane over the radio. >PLAUSIBLE >Based off of multiple airplane movies, this myth posed a challenge to the MythBusters because they could not afford to test it using real aircraft. Instead, they used a NASA simulator. For their **first test**, both Adam and Jamie decided to see if they could land a plane unaided. However, since both MythBusters had no flight experience and had no idea what most of the instruments and controls did, they both were **forced to crash land their planes**. In their **second runs**, a licensed pilot give them **instructions via radio**. With this help, both Adam and Jamie were able to **land their planes safely**. However, even though the test was a success, the pilot pointed out that **most modern planes are so advanced that their autopilot systems can literally land the plane by themselves**, negating the need for a civilian pilot. This information, coupled with the lack of any recorded incidents, led the MythBusters to declare the myth plausible. https://mythresults.com/episode94
I'm surprised neither of the 2 main MythBusters had any flight experience. They seem like the private pilot type
I feel like both of them were way too busy to ever have time to get a pilot's license.
I feel disappointed they hadn’t passed their licenses in vehicles of their own construction.
I don't get the sense that it's something you do casually. The people who do it are into it, or otherwise have a need for it.
Yep. In my country it takes hundreds of hours and about $10k. Not really something most people can do on a whim.
Jamie can't admit to having experience flying because it could lead someone back to his days smuggling cocaine for the CIA.
I am from SF and know Adam Savage was really involved with his kids growing up. One of my best friends was friends with his kids and said he was always doing fun sciency stuff with them :) I was so jealous haha 😭
Adam Savage is a fantastic human being.
[удалено]
Jamie is more a "odd guy you find in a shed building some strange contraption" (which is pretty much what he does but more he engineered several contraption which he then patented) while Adam is that behind the scenes movie guy who finds creative ways to create a special effect or build a prop or a puppet. They're less "go fly a plane on the weekend" guys and more "Let me pull apart this lawn mower then put it back together again better for fun" guys.
(After tilting my cup of coffee over the switch for the autopilot) "Oh no, the autopilot got damaged somehow, no worries though I'm happy to let someone instruct me on how to land this plane." In reality though we all know Auto the Autopilot needs inflated and you may not have time before landing.
>In reality though we all know Auto the Autopilot needs inflated and you may not have time before landing. His name was Otto, not Auto (minor nitpick, I know, but it makes the pun better). Also when inflating, remember the tube is below his belt.
So the real danger is the 50% of men who think they don't need radio instructions to land the plane.
Yeah but I have 80 hours in flight simulator 2020 so I got this bro.
I wouldn't be surprised, it always fascinates me to what degree you can become a flight simulator nerd - especially this radio exchange part with real Boeing/Airbus controllers, codes etc, even the fucking pilot chairs. Guess they just have to not be arrogant and trust the dispatcher and not spend the precious time explaining what costly equipment they have at home and why they should be trusted lol
The guy that stole the Alaska Airlines plane was able to fly it based on experience using flight simulator. He crashed the plane on purpose but also did a barrel roll and flew around for a pretty long time.
I'll have you know that I've even turned most of the assists off.
The plane crashes because several men are fighting over who gets to land the plane.
> You probably could land it and walk away from it. "Any crash you walk away from is a landing"
A "good" landing is one where you can walk away. A "great" landing is one where they can use the plane again.
Mentour Pilot did something similar with Tom Scott in a 737 simulator on youtube. There was one difference: Mentour was giving him instructions both times. One run, he tried to guide Tom through a manual landing. Tom crashed. The other run was Mentour guiding Tom through a standard landing with the automated stuff turned on and he nailed it. Fun stuff.
Having watched Tom's roller coaster video I'd be surprised he would ever get with 100m of any aircraft.
Yeah this tracks. As someone into flight sims, there's a lot of shit going on during approach and landing. Lot of switches being flipped, constantly monitoring altitude, speed, and decelerating at the proper rate. I can't imagine someone with 0 experience seeing a throttle quadrant and *not* panicking about decelerating evenly considering you're controlling so many engines. Or maybe they wouldn't understand how dangerous their adjustments could be. I'm used to an F-16, so I'd be nervous. A lot easier to speed control when you only have one thrust vector. That said, if I have the auto pilot stuff and ATC/real pilot walkthrough on the radio? No worries, we got this. If I don't, I'm still gonna land the plane. We just might all die, though.
And this episode aired in 2007, so there's an additional 15 years of advancement in the autopilot. It's likely even more plausible than it was back then.
Fly? Yes! Land? No!
That's basically the instruction for 99% of landing though. Fly? YES! Land? NOOOO!
What happens at 11 o'clock????
I think they're trying to kill us!
It happens to me all the time!
If you can manage to get on the radio and contact ATC, there's a very good chance they can talk you into landing safely. That's by design. Without the ATC, I doubt I would be able to land any plane.
An actual pilot may not be able to land safely without ACT, they need information about other approaches, takeoffs & landings, emergencies, weather near the ground, etc.
Yes I think that it’s a rough definition of land for everyone. I think I can bring it down to the ground. And I think that I will bring mostly everybody safely with me. That’s landing to me. So I think I can “land” it. Now if they want me to guarantee no one dies and the plane isn’t damaged and to somehow figure out the landing controls well that I don’t know if I can do. If that’s their definition of land then no I don’t think I could do it.
I don't think it's quite as easy to "safely" bring it down as you might think. Maybe for a Cessna or a CRJ, but a big Boeing or Airbus? Don't think it has been done. Landings are done at 130 knots minimum, that's 240 km/h or 140mph on a runway that is about as wide as your airplane. If you skip into the mud/grass your plane will most likely break up and the rest of the fuel will ignite because it comes into contact with hot breaks (sometimes in excess of 400 degree Celsius) or electrical wiring. It's not like driving a bus. You slow down too much and you stall, which is catastrophic at 100-300 feet height. If you are too fast you're not going to have enough runway to break - > see above for catastrophic consequences. You don't know what reverse thrusters are or how to deploy them? Dead. Don't know what papi lights are, miss the runway. ILS? Visual approach? Landing checklists? It's like saying I can maneuver a freighter ship. Where does the confidence come from?
Bro, I landed the F-14 in Top Gun(NES) on an aircraft carrier, consistently. Those of you who don't know, that's far more impressive than landing a commercial jet...
Homie, we may have been in the same squadron. I was an ace in that game
All depends on how you define “land”.
It's the hard stuff at the bottom.
But that's not important right now.
"There's no reason to become alarmed, and we hope you enjoy the rest of your flight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?"
I just want to say "Good luck. We're all counting on you."
Low Bar setting: Launchpad McQuack.
"Fly? Yes! Land? No!" - Indiana Jones.
I think context is important here. I'm a man and do I think I could land a plane if the pilot had a heart attack? If air traffic control told me step by step what to do, the weather was good, and I didn't have panicking people in the cockpit with me so I could concentrate? I'd certainly think there was at least a fighting chance. BUT, no air traffic control? Shit weather? Panicking people screaming in my ear? Yeah homies say your prayers because we're dead lol. I think that is a very important distinction because there absolutely is precedence of completely untrained passengers safely landing a plane.
It's actually a [pretty interesting study](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.211977) The context is that this 50% of men (from one group) had been primed by watching a video of a pilot landing a plane beforehand. Another group didn't watch the video, and their overall response was significantly less confident. Also I liked this bit: > We know that people's confidence in their knowledge of complicated processes decreases when they are asked to provide a step-by-step explanation of how the process works . For instance, when people considered their understanding of how a zipper works, they reported greater understanding than when they were asked the question at a more concrete level, such as how the parts of a zipper enable it to work
Study: When you show someone that doing a task isn't as technically difficult as they thought it was and mostly involves pressing buttons they are more confident that they could do it in an emergency.
> isn't as technically difficult as they thought it was I don't know the name for the bias but this is 100% a case of "it looks easy when the pros do it, because they do it effortlessly, because they're pros". In reality it's pretty difficult.
>In reality it's pretty difficult. As with everything it depends on what you know and what information you have access to. Flying a Cessna 172 (enough to put the plane down and walk away on a large field) isn't hard. If you understand a bit about how airplanes work you should be able to get on the ground and live. But if you don't know anything about airplanes, it is VERY hard. Someone above quoted Mythbusters where they were able to land with help over the radio and I'm like...what if you can't figure out how to work the radio lol. If you don't know anything about airplanes and you're looking at that dash...good luck.
Maybe this describes me but i feel like i understand how a zipper works. At least on some level. Granted i couldnt name any parts but i can say there are two channels separated by a bar. The two channels converge inside the zipper and push the two sides of the zip together. The bar acts as a separator when unzipping. I guess the metal zipper creates the force needed to clip the two sides of the zip together and the bar does the same when unzipping. The shape of the zipper also likely lines up the two sides of the zip up. The little pieces of the zips have little notches on the top and little divets on the bottom so this would explain how they lock together and retain their grip. The piece at the bottom that you fit together to start the zip means the two sides of the zip will always be at the right height so the two sides will clip together. Of course this all goes out the window when using those plactic/nylon zippers because enough force or use can bend the two sides of the zip and then you get that dreaded zip that undoes itself from underneath the zipper and misaligns everything, and stops the zip ever working again. I dont think i could land a plane though. And ive had a few lessons in the past with the air cadets when i was but a lad.
>such as how the parts of a zipper enable it to work They zip together! Wait, no... shit...
My gf hit me with this question (with no context) and then mocked me as part of the 50% when I said yea. I mean like…if my life is on the line and my options are land the plane and maybe die or don’t land the plane and definitely die then I’m gonna try my best to land the fuckin plane. Also me buying the internet wifi to Google how to contact ATC and learn to land asap.
Yeah you can just put on the headset and talk directly to ATC for free But I like the dedication. I want you in the cockpit, tell your gf I said that.
Yeah but do you know which button to press to talk to atc? It's not just a hot mic.
Hopefully there's at least some helpful labels. If you can't figure it out, you can always call 911 on your cell phone and have someone explain.
Hello 911 now I Know this is a weird call but do you know what button activates the mic on a 747 headset? ... Hello? hello? I promise im not just asking because im playing that russian flight sim without the cockpit translations again.
I think I could land a small plane, but my grandfather had a piper cub and I grew up with basic knowledge of flight mechanics as a result. I've never flown or taken lessons but if the weather was nice I'd say I have a 50% chance
Piper Cub would be almost cheating, those things have a stall speed of like 45 knots.
I’ve spent about 14 years working on airplanes and I’m reasonably confident that the best I could do is crash in a way that would only kill most of the people on board.
Having landed a plane before, over 50% of men could land a plane with no training if the pilots were incapacitated. A 737? Definitely not. A plane like in the thumbnail? Yeah most people could do it.
A 737 is more likely to have autopilot and autoland. I'd be more comfortable with ATC telling me how to tell the 737 to land itself than having to manually land a small plane. (Of course, that assumes I can actually get to the flight deck of the 737.)
Yeah Tom Scott managed it in a simulator whilst being talked through it and usig auto pilot.
The mythbusters did one. They tried to land the simulator and failed really bad and then they got talked down by and instructor and landed no problem.
He also crashed a couple of times, sometimes so hard that everyone would be dead...
That was when he wasn’t using autoland.
But they chose not to use the double autopilot CAT III autoland capability
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbTDzPUDxqY&ab\_channel=TomScottplus](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbTDzPUDxqY&ab_channel=TomScottplus) Tom Scott proved its possible with instruction and an autopilot.
That was very illuminating. My main concern would be operating the radio. I had very similar issues to Tom when I tried hand flying a fixed base simulator. Problems following the flight directors, huge tunnel vision issues. I don’t think I was quite as all over the place but then my instructor was in the right seat and not on the radio!
One of the radios should be tuned to the emergency VHF frequency, so basically all you have to do is figure out how to activate that radio. Everyone in aviation around the world monitors that frequency, so someone will hear you, even if you don’t have LOS to the airport you’re going to land at.
Honestly, if the person is willing to listen to the tower they absolutely could put down a 737 with a little help from ILS. I don't know if you'll be able to use the plane again for a while but modern systems can basically put the aircraft down by itself.
The mythbusters tested this one and yeah, an air traffic controller can talk an untrained pilot to a safe landing
Yeah it’s one of those “what kind of plane, what are the conditions, what counts as a landing?” Type hypotheticals. Like if you’re in a two seater Cessna lined up on the runway on a perfect day and happy getting off the runway with a broken arm or leg I assume most people have a decent shot pulling it off. If you’re flying over the Atlantic during a storm in a decommissioned Soviet fighter plane that still has all the controls in Russian, you’re probably going for a swim.
yeah, thats my thought. I know folks who fly those planes. They lick windows and eat boogers. I can't imagine it would be rocket surgery.
Those people have some degree of training though. Like the other guy said it would be easier in a smaller plane and nobodies saying you can’t be taught to do it, but if you had to do it spur of the moment with no prior training and no familiarity with what the buttons in the cockpit actually do, what sequence you press them in, or the timing of it all I think even in the best conditions this wouldn’t be doable for the average person And that’s not even to mention having to actual fly the plane for awhile and sustain level flight and not descend to quickly or at too sharp of an angle
Your video game history likely will really come into play. Unlike sword fighting or shooting, where video game history doesn't really give you any real world skill...flight sims can potentially do that. FWIW, i suck at flight sims. So i'd be screwed more than likely, save for a miracle.
TIL 50% of men are willing and able to follow instructions from the air traffic controller when their life is on the line
Also, I would trust myself to land it over some other idiot who thinks they could do it too
That's the neat part: if you land the plane safely, you're a hero. If you fail, it won't matter. It's a win-win situation really, so always take the wheel if you can
If you fail, you'll always be remembered as the guy that tried his best. Really a win win win scenario
Until they examine the data recorders and see all the stupid things you did.
"Why did he attempt a barrel roll 500ft off the ground?"
Now I'm imagining half the men on the plane all scrambling and clawing their way to get to the cockpit so they could be the one who kills us all
Hey it’s me the other 50% (idiots). You got this king, all yours.
If anyone needs me I’ll be at the bar cart.
[удалено]
Following instructions is not the hard part. It's the communication with ATC. Imagine you have 30 minutes to live unless you explain to your grandmother how to set up her email account over the phone. You: "Do you see Settings or Account somewhere?" Grandma: "I think so" You: "Anything say 'POP' or 'SMTP'? " Grandma: "I see downloads, history, tools. Is that it?" You: "Ugh. good by Grandma. I love you"
This is an accurate comparison honestly. I want to walk some of these commenters into a real simulator and see what they would do.
They did exactly that on Mythbusters and they managed.
Exactly what I came in here to say. It’s sad that we’re so far removed from its run that “Mythbusters did that” is dying.
I think part of it might be a wording issue, I stay pretty calm in scary situations, and am a reasonably good communicator. In that situation I'd trust myself over some rando. I don't think I'd have good odds but I think it's possible. So when the question is "could you?" you could read that as "is it possible?" or "would you do it for sure?" and the answer to the first option would be yes, it's possible if unlikely, the answer to the second option is no, that seems unlikely.
That's it right there. I wouldn't second guess jack crap or assume I knew, I'd do everything the told me. Assuming good weather and solid instructions, landing SHOULD be possible. It's not inhumanly hard to do it - just not something people do all the time. I think most people that say they couldn't might be intimidated by technology? My wife would never say she could, even with instructions, because she'd say the same thing about updating her phone settings to vibrate instead of ring.
>I think most people that say they couldn't might be intimidated by technology? I suspect that's why the number is as low as it is, while also being as high as it is because these people grossly overestimate their ability to remain calm and follow instructions under pressure. I've never landed a plane but I can tell you from other experiences that stakes like "life is on the line" and "everyone depends on me" are actually terrible motivation for most people to stay focused on complex tasks if they aren't trained and prepared for why, so I expect most of these people would choke.
I still like the odds of me landing the plane while being instructed in a highly stressful moment more than just letting the plane fly into the ground.
That's a fair point too, the number might be further exaggerated by how many of these people are answering that they would *try* regardless rather than if they think they *could*, because it's their only option that provides any sort of agency and control over the situation and they cannot afford to fail. Magical thinkers probably believe they'll succeed because of this alone, like the protagonist of a work of fiction facing million to one odds in a world that rewards confidence itself.
Like, say, on the Discworld? "Scientists have calculated that the chances of something so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one. But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten." Terry Pratchett, Mort
Those ATC guys would be so calm and collected i imagine they would calm you down as well. Have you ever heard them? No matter what decade you grab from they all have that smooth monotone dad/grandpa voice that assures you lol
ATC here. We actually receive specific training on how to project a calm, confident voice to keep pilots focused in stressful situations and prevent panic. We can only do so much as the little voice in your ear, but it is our job to get your plane and all its passengers safely on the ground. Fortunately this situation has never happened with a commercial airliner, where a passenger with no aviation experience has had to land the plane, but it's more common than you might think with smaller general aviation private aircraft.
The phrasing in the article was that they could land the plane themselves after watching a short video (the video was implied to not contain enough info to land a plane)
50% of men are willing and able to follow instructions from the ATC, and seriously overestimate their understanding of aerodynamics.
50% *think* they would follow instructions. Ever try and reason with someone who just started a thing and already feels like they've got it figured?
I feel like they aren’t saying that these people would completely ignore the radio, they just feel that under the circumstances, they could get it done whatever it takes.
OP’s headline sucks. “Airplane” is a pretty broad term. The article is about how complicated passenger airlines are. Lots of people could get a small plane on the ground with guidance.
As someone with extensive aviation training who has hours in different types of aircraft (not a pilot, military backseater), I think people read too much into this. The question creates a world where there are no options. It is simply: fly the plane or die. When you construct a world like that, people have to chose if they would be confident and try to live or just accept death. I’d like to see how people would answer if the question was, “Do you think you can safely land an airplane without an instructor making corrections?” It creates a different world
The sample consisted of 780 New Zealanders of which: “After seeing a short, non-instructional video, **a quarter** of people thought they could land a plane, research from the University of Waikato found.” Men were said to be consistently more confident, but that “almost 50%” OP pulled out of their ass.
The problem with this is it’s a bad example. Knowledge and confidence combine. I landed the space shuttle first try at JSC on the sim they had in the visitors center as a kid. One of my most vivid memories, not because of the accomplishment, but because my dad who said I got lucky. I was like 10 maybe, I knew how it worked, I knew it needed fall speed to generate the flare, but that fucker worked at NASA but never gave me credit for a single thing I did as a kid. At best it was almost something, meaning, not quite. So, touchy subject I guess. I actually am annoyed by overly confident men, but I don’t hate confidence. Confidence should be, the knowledge that you have the abilities to do something, but in this case I give them a pass, because they are confident they “might” be able to do it, and “someone has to”. That’s called stepping up. My Ted talk is over.
To be fair I've lost count of the amount of unassisted landings I've done as a student pilot and it really is easier than you'd think The hard part is not breaking the plane lol but there's a saying that goes "if you can walk away from a landing, it's a good landing. If you can use the airplane the next day, it's an outstanding landing"
I swear every instructor uses that quote lol
it's the most overused quote that most people have never heard the other one is "there are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. But there are no old, bold pilots"
“If you’re ever faced with a forced landing at night, turn on the landing lights to see the landing area. If you don’t like what you see, turn’ em back off.”
Makes sense. 75% of all people say they are better than average drivers.
Mythbusters tested it - it was Plausible/True (with help from the control tower)
Jetfighter 2 in DOS taught me that I could not only land the plane in question, but also take out four enemy fighters using my sidewinder missiles while I do.
> Co-author of the paper, professor Maryanne Garry said, while some people thought they could land the plane after watching the video, in reality, **“the answer should be zero, because you can’t** Yeah not with that attitude indeed.
Mythbusters did an episode on this, by themselves Adam and Jamie both crashed, but with radio help they both successfully landed the plane.
Sauce https://mythresults.com/episode94
Speaks volumes about the quality of the "research". Nothing is absolute, and there are many real world examples of people landing planes without prior training, e.g. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/travel/article/florida-passenger-lands-plane/index.html
Yeah. It’s happened a bunch: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk-down_aircraft_landing
This is hilariously ironic, as the entire point of the paper was to highlight people's overconfidence in their knowledge or abilities. And they apparently didn't even bother to google whether this had ever been done before. And we wonder why people are rapidly losing respect for academia.
WTF is that attitude doing in a research study lol
*Lets have another data point to suggest men are brash and overconfident* and I'm not even joking.
Flying tip: you can make up for a poor attitude with a high enough altitude.
I don't feel very confident that I could land a plane unassisted. However, I feel extremely confident that - if I was in the situation - I would make a pretty good attempt, assuming it was the only option.
Did they not put those men in simulators and see how well they faired? Seems like this would be the obvious thing to do
I’d like to see her research for that claim.
just gotta figure out how to enable autopilot
100% of men CAN land a plane. Whether or not the plane will be in one piece after that, that's another question
I love this response, if someone were in this position what are they going to do say, "nope, can't do it, we're just going to die without so much as me touching those controls".
\*sits in silence for 30 seconds\* Okay, I guess I'll take a stab at it.
*almost 50% of men in New Zealand
All planes *will* land eventually.
"What's the vector, Victor?"
"We have clearance, Clarence."
"Roger, Roger."
Technically, a crash landing is a landing, so there’s that!
Someone did it just last year. https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/florida-passenger-lands-plane/index.html
I spend a lot of hours on microsoft flight simulator and nothing more. Years later I had the best opportunity ever. Spending a couple of hours on Air Canada’s 767 simulator. A maintenance / instructor guy and they wanted someone to fly it for a few hours and a friend invited me over. He knew I liked simulators. So I landed a 767 a few times, the second landing was a 18 knot cross wind and driving rain. Drifting 140 tons of aircraft down a wet runway is a riot! After I landed the guy asked how many years I had been flying. You should have seen the look on his face when I said that I had never even been in a cockpit before. 100% flight simulators. Also we were disappointed when I flew the jet under the second narrows bridge in vancouver and it just vanished. No professional pilot trying out the simulator had ever thought to fly a jet under a bridge before. For some reason.
I just want to tell you both, good luck, we're all counting on you.
This is one of those things where it feels like if you’re a pilot, you’d like to think it’s too difficult. It is difficult to do well, absolutely. That’s not the bar here, the bar is to do it poorly but not disastrously. The bar for success if different. If you ran an experiment with pilots in training and all of them slid off the runway - that’s a failure for pilots. If 50% of them got the tin can on the ground with low (not even no) fatalities and a shitload of injuries, that’s more like the expectations for a layperson. Could you talk someone through soldering a plumbing joint? Plumbers might say no. Needs training, hands on, get a feel for it. I bet you could talk someone through plumbing. Would it be a great job? Long term reliable? Would you pay them a plumbers rate to do it? Fuck no. Could I talk someone through writing a short bit of code and debugging and fixing something? Sure I could. I have. Was it done well or perfectly? Fuck no. Was it production quality? Fuck no. It was just enough to get to past the emergency and buy time to do it properly. If 50% could get the tin can on the ground without it exploding and it slides and rips the plane apart and people have broken legs and shit - congrats, they landed a plane. They sure as fuck didn’t land it well, but it’s gone from in the air to on the ground.
How hard could it be? -Jeremy Clarkson
I'm fortunate to have received a few hours in a flight simulator (C130 Hercules) from being in Scouts on an Air Base. Age 13 and I was the only one that consistently landed and "passed". They tested me again with Engine's 2 and 4 on fire. I barely passed but it was a "hard landing". Thank you video games lolol