FAA Says No More Minesweeper Or Solitaire In Cockpit 342
If you like to pass the time playing minesweeper, or checking your Facebook updates while piloting a 900,000-pound aircraft 400 mph, you won't like the latest FAA decision. The agency has asked airlines to create policies to minimize cockpit distractions, including pilots' use of personal electronic devices. "There is no room for distraction when your job is to get people safely to their destinations," said DOT Secretary Ray LaHood. "The traveling public expects professional pilots to focus on flying and on safety at all times."
Minesweeper (Score:5, Funny)
Should that have been caught when going through security at the airport? I mean, at a minimum, we're talking 10 bombs here...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, the pilots should go back to bangin' the steward/ess from First Class...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
At least if one of them's banging the steward/ess, it means that the other one's free to fly the plane.
You obviously don't have a good enough imagination...
MFS (Score:5, Funny)
Does the ban apply to Microsoft Flight Simulator?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yo dawg, we heard you like flying so we put a cockpit in your cockpit so you can fly while you fly!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, but you can get around that restriction with new Microsoft Flight Simulator Simulator 2010! Brought to you by the same people who brought you World of World of Warcraft [theonion.com]!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, except if you're playing MFS in the cockpit and you're flying the same thing you're flying on the plane...
They need something to do (Score:5, Insightful)
"focus on flying and on safety at all times" is staring at a big blue sky of nothing for hours on end. That will put anyone to sleep. Let them keep their minds doing something, who really cares what they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Not so much. If someone is bored to sleep by this, they have no business piloting jumbo jets. If they do start to get drowsy, let the copilot take the controls for a few minutes (that's what they're for) and splash some water on your face.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The B-2 crews get to switch off with one sitting in a lawn chair behind the seats napping or listening to music, why are the commercial flights any different?
Re:They need something to do (Score:5, Interesting)
My thoughts exactly. After take-off they turn on the autopilot and there's not much to do until landing. It would put anybody to sleep, which isn't good if something should suddenly happen. Maybe they should alter the rules so that at least one of the pilot / co-pilot has to be paying attention at all times, or at least ease the ban for very long flights.
As I wrote/asked in another reply... where are the people dying from these supposed distracted pilots? I've yet to hear about them.
I have not seen a need for this law. The reason I'm replying to you specifically is that your approach has an implicit degree of acceptance to there being a need; can you give me evidence of this need? I just want to see some form of proof that we need this law/rule/ban in any shape or form.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I just want to see some form of proof that we need this law/rule/ban in any shape or form.
Before planes, let's start with a form of transportation that A) kills far more people than flying and B) has demonstrated clear and present dangers related to distration.
Please join me in banning ALL forms of distraction in your automobile, including talk radio, music, the bobble hula-girl you've got on your dash and, above all, naughty children.
Re: (Score:2)
And please get your car skills tested every 12 months by an examiner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
While our plane doesn't go nearly as fast (~120mph at cruise), we've still had plenty of moments of acute boredom. Try flying through airspace with next to no traffic on a clear day. Even without cruise control, flying straight and level with no turbulence takes almost no concentration. One time, we were the only plane flying through that center's territory at the time, so the only radio communication was when we first arrived into the airspace, and when we were handed off into the next. Add in two pilots,
Re:They need something to do (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a lot more faith that a seasoned pilot playing minesweeper knows what he's doing than I do in some lawsuit-averse bureaucrat. That pilot is fully aware that errors will result in not just the deaths of everyone on board, but of himself too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They need something to do (Score:4, Interesting)
"focus on flying and on safety at all times" is staring at a big blue sky of nothing for hours on end. That will put anyone to sleep. Let them keep their minds doing something, who really cares what they do.
What you wrote relates to something I was thinking about this... I realize they must pay attention and that lives are at stake... and I understand the purpose of what they are trying to do here. But what I don't see is any evidence that we have distracted pilots resulting in death to travelers...
I have yet to hear of a single incident where some distracted pilot crashed and killed people. And so I am forced to ask if this ban/rule ACTUALLY makes any sense. In theory it seems good; but if nobody is actually dying from distracted pilots, wtf? Really.
Re:They need something to do (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes you regulate before people die.
In this case, the alarmingly distracted pilots last year who way overshot their destination point out how a distracted pilot could cause some serious problems -- up to and including death on a big scale.
As I recall, they couldn't even be hailed because they simply weren't paying attention -- " During that time, air traffic controllers and the airline's dispatchers made numerous efforts to contact the plane by radio and through text messaging devices." [cnn.com] If you're so distracted you can't be reached by radio in the cockpit, something needs to be remedied.
I understand the pilots need to keep their brain engaged on something so they don't doze off, but they can't get so engaged as to lose track of what they're doing.
pilots in deep coma (Score:2)
I don't think the original issue is about distraction. The air traffic controllers at Denver and later at Minneapolis tried to establish radio contact with the pilots, and other pilots around that area also tried to radio them. All sorts of speakers would have gone off. For all that the ground is concerned, the aircraft might have been hijacked, except it has not changed its cruising velocity. It's not about distraction. It's not about dozing off. Both pilots would need to fall in a very deep coma for that
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed. For a pilot to stop responding but not change his squawk to 7600 (or 7500...) screams "pilots in trouble!"
7500 - Unlawful Interference (ie, hijack)
7600 - Communications failure
7700 - Emergency
(some other interesting ones)
0000 - military intercept code (apparently used with drones)
7777 - military interception (ie, possibly supersonic with weapons hot)
some more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_(aviation)#Routine_codes [wikipedia.org]
(because I know you get curious :P)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're so distracted you can't be reached by radio in the cockpit, something needs to be remedied.
I agree with you 100%, but we are talking about Minesweeper and Solitaire. There is a big difference between minor diversion and totally engrossing secondary activity.
Re: (Score:2)
No deaths, but from TFA
Last October the pilots of Northwest 188 over-flew their destination by 150 miles because they were using their laptop computers for personal activities and lost situational awareness.
which is quite serious IMHO
Re: (Score:2)
This actually was all prompted by the Northwest flight 188 incident [wikipedia.org]. Given, nobody died in that incident, but most people still consider it a pretty scary scenario.
Also, there have been crashes caused by distractions-- I recall one where the flight crew was so obsessed with finding the cause of a landing gear failure light that they neglected to check the autopilot settings, or pay attention to the altimeter, and the plane crashed as a result. (In fact, IIRC, they actually bumped the autopilot in the wrong
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, looking down at your little screen instead of out there where there might be passing birds that fly into your engines is really something i want them to have permission to do....instead they should just suck it up as they are paid enormous amounts of money to do absolutely nothing for the length of the trip...i think it should speak for itself....
Re:They need something to do (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, looking down at your little screen instead of out there where there might be passing birds that fly into your engines
Yeah, I've often worried about all those birds at 36,000 feet while in the cruise portion of my flights....
Re: (Score:2)
That and your doing 485 MPH, you're not going to see the bird until its whipping past (or into) the cockpit windscreen.
Re: (Score:2)
Training (Score:2)
Why don't they do flight simulations? They could practice flying a plane, while flying a plane!
I'm all for letting pilots practice emergency scenarios - or even routine scenarios. They might even re-route the regular flight controls to the simulator as long as switching back control is fast and clear.
Re:They need something to do (Score:4, Funny)
They can clean their handguns.
Re:They need something to do (Score:5, Funny)
Co-Cap't Palm Pilot: "Is it the APU Generator 1 Bus Tie Isolation Button?"
Re: (Score:2)
On planes with fly-by-wire, they should use HUD and the [disconnected] controls to operate a flight simulator. Let 'em practice landing when they have nothing else to do. If some wind speed sensors were mounted around the runways you could send that data to the system (along with weather information) as well.
Re: (Score:2)
...which is why every plane flown prior to the advent of personal electronic devices crashed.
If you want to sell the idea that this "no distractions" direction is misguided, I'm willing to listen; but if your best argument is that "nobody" can do something that many, many people have done (stay awake without computer games while piloting a jet), forget it.
Re: (Score:2)
I sort of had the same thought. I mean, obviously getting distracted could be bad too...but like imagine a 7 hour flight from Boston to LA in the middle of the night. Not really a lot going on. It almost seems like it might be good to have something to keep them awake and occupied...
I don't claim to really know the answer here...just a thought.
Re:They need something to do (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only have autopilots worked incredibly well in the past, with a high success rate, but the idea is to keep Pilots awake by letting them exercise their mind while in flight.
Staring at the same blinky lights and widgets all day is going to be about the same as staring at the same blank blue sky.
A game of solitaire and Minesweeper shouldn't be that big an issue. Its like 10 minutes. If there was a catastrophic failure in that time there are systems in place to warn the pilots, like buzzers and alarms and warning sounds.
When was the last time we had an airliner NOT get people safely to its destination based solely on a Pilot being distracted?
Re:They need something to do (Score:5, Informative)
Well, ultimately they did arrive safely, but there were those guys who overshot an entire city last year [cnn.com] because they weren't paying attention.
That might have something to do with trying to crack down on the number of possible distractions in the cockpit. I mean, getting immersed in some piece of software and not realizing you're a half hour late in your descent and that you've overshot by 150 miles or so -- that's not the kind of thing passengers want happening.
Re:They need something to do (Score:4, Insightful)
I think one cockup a year is an acceptable rate, especially if it's one non-dangerous one. Forcing them to concentrate on nothing is going to lead to more serious problems as they fall asleep at the wheel instead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, that was a pretty dangerous cockup, but that was due to the fact they had their radio silenced or whatever.
They really shouldn't be flying around with that off at all. Even if they're paying attention to the plane, for all they know, the airport they've flying to has suffered some sort of disaster, or another plane is out of control and headed towards where they're flying, or Air Force One pulled rank on their flight corridor, or something external like that, and they should be flying elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What, like having air traffic control or the airline's dispatcher repeatedly trying to hail you on the radio and by text messages to see why you're not responding like you should?
These guys weren't paying attention to the operation of the aircraft at all -- if you can't tell that someone is calling you on the radio, a buzzer wouldn't do a damned thing. Chances are, one had already gone off.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They need something to do (Score:5, Informative)
Perspective? You want perspective? How about these tid-bits from the link [cnn.com] I provided earlier ...
and
This isn't "missing an exit because you're having a conversation with a passenger". This is ignoring the fact that your GPS is telling you to turn right, your wife is telling you that you've missed the exit, and ignoring the police car with his lights flashing indicating that the road is closed ahead.
Then, to top it all off ...
This isn't a little "oops" we're talking about here. This isn't getting slightly distracted. This is a prolonged period of not being in control of a friggin' aircraft, and then doing some really dodgy things afterward which essentially wipes out the whole audit trail the system is supposed to have. So, we don't even really know WTF they were doing.
You're trying to find plausible reasons why this shouldn't be such a big deal -- maybe you should read a little more about what happened. Because, the people who are more closely associated with this are using much harsher terms than you seem to think applies.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not only have autopilots worked incredibly well in the past, with a high success rate, but the idea is to keep Pilots awake by letting them exercise their mind while in flight.
They've also caused accidents, but hey, who cares about facts, eh?
When was the last time we had an airliner NOT get people safely to its destination based solely on a Pilot being distracted?
Do you honestly want examples?
1994: Aeroflot Flight 593
1987: Northwest Airlines Flight 255
There are plenty more, but the Northwest Flight 255 is a nice example. They were already way too distracted before take-off that they completely fucked it up and killed 156 people. 154 of 156 passengers on board and 2 on ground were killed.
They're getting paid to be responsible, alert and to fly the plane, not play minesweeper.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, Flight 225 "crashed" in Romulus shortly after takeoff, and it was never determined whether the loss of power to the Flaps Warning System was accidental or deliberate.
Coincidence? I think not. Never trust a Romulan.
Re: (Score:2)
Northwest Airlines Flight 255: plane crashed during take-off and was not on auto-pilot (afaik, no auto-pilot can handle take-off or landing)
Aeroflot Flight 593: they accidentally turned off the auto-pilot and hence the plane was not on auto-pilot.
The point of discussion, if you had read GP's and GGP's post was how good Auto-Pilot system was and how well it can handle things without pilot intervention and how well it can notify the pilot when something goes wrong (despite the p
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The way it's supposed to work, the soonest the pilot should engage the autopilot is after retracting the
landing gear. On the landing side, if you have a new(er) aircraft and the appropriate equipment on the ground,
the autopilot can land the aircraft. IIRC, the weight-on-wheels sensor cuts out the autopilot when it engages.
(This is all hazy memories from my time as a DS-9 @ Boeing)
Re: (Score:2)
That's all well and good - the problem is the rare occasions when they don't work - especially if people have been conditioned to rely on them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I was fascinated to learn that the Garmin G1000 glass-cockpit based C182 aircraft I was riding in (and will eventually have to pass a checkride in) has about fourteen different ways of immediately disabling the autopilot system. For a system that works so incredibly well, it seems odd there would be so many ways of killing it in an emergency.
The autopilots (servos and actuators) are often quite a bit stronger than the p
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They need something to do (Score:5, Funny)
Pilot: "I spy, with my little eye, something white and fluffy."
Copilot: "A cloud. Ok, my turn. I spy, with my little eye, something white and fluffy."
Pilot: "Another cloud. Alright, I spy..."
Re:They need something to do (Score:5, Funny)
"No, I was thinking of that mountain goat over there."
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to the other points above, there are nearly always at least two, and in larger planes often more people, in the cockpit certified to fly the plane. On a 6 hour transcontinental flight, I'd like to think that they're switching off on the "watching blinky lights and widgets" duty. I know how well I can pay attention to blinky lights and widgets for 6 straight hours, and lemme tell ya... it's not all that well. I've been known to zone out watching a three minute install progress bar.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing's infallible, but the reason we have autopilots is that in the big scheme of things, they're a hell of a lot closer to infallible than a human pilot.
Re:They need something to do (Score:5, Informative)
Far Side (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of reminds me of the coloring book scene in Air America. :)
Who is surprised by this? (Score:2, Insightful)
With the ban on texting and cell phone use with out a handsfree device for public transportation and the trucking industry, who finds this surprising? I'm only surprised that this wasn't already banned.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fairly sure it was already banned in concept, just like text messaging for motor vehicles.
You are not allowed to operate a motor vehicle while distracted. Reading and sending texts is a distraction. No new laws were required, the existing laws simply needed to be applied.
The same applied to aircraft, known as the Sterile Cockpit rule. It explicitly stated activities under 10k feet, but other rules apply, and any pilot would know that they are in control of their aircra
Boredom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The pilot's job is the feed the dog. The dog's job is to stop the pilot from touching the controls.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are correct. The plane largely takes care of itself, except for emergency situations. These new rules will create a lot of very bored pilots.
We're already quite a step up from the days of porn magazines littering passenger aircraft cockpits. Now you can't even have digital porn either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's like being a long distance truck driver, except without the steering wheel and rest stop hookers.
When did the airlines get rid of stewardesses? At least they still have blackjack, right?
Re:Boredom (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. This idea is superficially appealing, but doesn't recognize the reality of what a lot of modern piloting is like. It reeks of being an overreaction to the recent -- but extremely rare -- incident of pilots being so caught up in a distraction that they overshot their destination. This was an isolated incident of irresponsible -- and PAIRED -- pilots, who turned off many of the countermeasures that are supposed to prevent such a disconnect.
I am not a pilot, but realistically, I would think that pilots need to keep their minds engaged, even if it's not something related to flying the aircraft itself. It seems more harmful to *force* them to be bored, increasing the probability of e.g. falling asleep or "zoning out".
I can't accept that this was a reasoned decision by intelligent, safety-oriented professionals, rather than a directive from politicians above.
Counter-intuitive results (Score:4, Insightful)
How many of us have been berated for doodling while listening to a lecture in class? It's something that's oft criticized, and yet recent evidence has shown that doodling helps us pay attention by managing boredom [time.com]. This counter-intuitive result makes it clear that what's really going on isn't always obvious.
I'm not going so far as to say that dickering on a netbook is a good idea when flying a commercial aircraft, but I will say that we should do some kind of study of the real effects of such "distractions" on real-world metrics like accident history, etc. We may well find that "distractions" result in better-qualified pilots remaining on the job rather than moving on elsewhere, and a subsequently reduced accident rate, even if individual pilot performance is somewhat reduced.
While phrases like "900,000 pound aircraft at 400 MPH" sound dramatic, the truth is that the aircraft are almost universally on auto-pilot, are flying somewhere above 30,000 feet, and are being monitored by RADAR at all times, so that any close calls cause planes to be diverted. And a "close call" is anything under 3 MILES of horizontal separation, and 1000 feet of vertical separation, so we aren't talking about a situation where you would even SEE the other aircraft without knowing exactly what direction to look for it.
Statistically speaking, it's safer to fly on a commercial airliner than it is to VISIT a family member in a hospital!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't modern airliners basically fly themselves once they're at cruising altitude?
Well, if by that, you mean the pilots don't need to flap their arms like wings, yes, correct.
I never did the ATP thing, but talked to a lot of instructors, etc. A friend of mine did the ATP thing for awhile, but I never asked him much about it. In practice, you spend most of your time balancing and prioritizing four tasks in addition to flying the plane.
1) There is no such thing as a flawless plane. Something is always acting up. That's why you have triple/quad redundancy on everything. Every flight yo
Re: (Score:2)
The passenger in seat 54 is an arrogant jack*ss do I have permission to throw him out the escape hatch? Passenger 23 is irate because last time he flew, the other airline lost his baggage and wants to know what you're going to do about that. Passenger 87 says his lunch is no good and wants a refund.
I bet things were easier before Passenger 57 stopped paying his taxes. You could just delegate these jobs to him ;)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What are these pilots supposed to do, stare at the unchanging instruments for hours until their eyes glaze over and they pass out?
Sexual experimentation.
Not a lot to do on many flights... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Checking your facebook status? (Score:2)
Posting while Flying (Score:2)
I cannot wait for the first comment along the following lines:
"Yep, flying a jumbo at 20000 feet right now.
Posted from my iPad."
I predict really long toilet breaks... (Score:2)
they should ban auto-pilot also (Score:2)
Otherwise pilots will end up falling asleep or finding something to do with the flight attendants that will most likely be more dangerous than playing minesweeper. They aren't supposed to be doing those either, but if I'm going to break the rules it won't be by playing minesweeper.
"focus on flying and safety" does not require staring at warning lights until they start blinking. It requires keeping your mind alert and being physical able to react when the lights blink and the alarm sounds.
Oh my God.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Full attribution, while it's the Monty Python troupe, it's actually from John Cleese's How to Irritate People.
Typical Government Over-Regulation. (Score:2)
Obviously, the free market could've fixed this problem better. The planes that are piloted by minesweeper-playing pilots would crash, leading to less people flying that particular airline.
I mean, you'd have to have a few thousand deaths or so first, but you do have to break a few eggs to make an omelet
Shiny (Score:2)
Enforcment (Score:2)
They can pass any laws they want, but who enforces them?
I might be wrong here, but at least for the majority of flights are the pilots the highest ranking people on the plane? and I doubt that a stewardess will go so far as to report a pilot.
Textbook example of unintended consequences? (Score:2)
This is obviously coming along with the increased focus on removing distractions from driving (cell phones, texting, DVDs, etc). The problem is that flying a plane has almost nothing in common with driving a car, beyond some rudimentary instrumentation similarities and the overall goal of getting from point A to point B. The skies are not crowded like a freeway--a pilot doesn't have to worry about the plane next to him cutting him off on the way to LAX, because there is no plane next to him--flight paths ar
Let me be the first to say... (Score:2)
...metric, please.
It's SO boring! (Score:5, Insightful)
I am currently doing flight training to a commercial pilot level. One of the things I do as a skills practice is fly on MS Flight Simulator using the VATSIM (Virtual Air Traffic Simulation) network - http://www.vatsim.net/ [vatsim.net] - and I routinely fly transoceanic flights. We fly with real airline callsigns, following real aircraft routes and timetables. The instrumentation and controls are (for the most part) the same as the real thing. The Flight Management Computers in the simulated planes are exactly the same as the real thing. If you have good equipment, the hands-on controls are almost the same. It's a fun way to pass the time and keep skills up to date...BUT:
It's so boring! Here is an example of what I look at for 9 hours without touching anything: http://www.flickr.com/photos/14584559@N03/4502059275/ [flickr.com]
When you've got 9+ hours of looking at nothing, and you only have to make radio contact once an hour (North Atlantic Track position reports) there is actually nothing to do. At most, you scan the instruments every couple minutes. Even on the flight sim, I usually resort to what we call "In-flight Movies" which is essentially pull up Hulu and watch something until we next have to change the aircraft controls, which is usually when leaving land or making landfall on the other side.
You have a cruising altitude which is held by a computer, and a heading which follows a little line on your on-board GPS, and a speed which is usually also controlled by a computer(or if not, it's setting a lever to a certain position and leaving it there). There is literally NOTHING for the pilot to do if they can't have some sort of distraction. Some real-world pilots I have flown with read a newspaper or magazine, some play with a Game Boy, DS, PSP, etc Some get up and walk through the passenger cabin just like a "How are you, how's it going?" sort of thing. Almost like a chef in a restaurant would come out to the dining area and ask how people's food is.
On top of the endless boredom, they don't get paid nearly enough. Pilots have one of the lowest returns on their education costs of any profession. Throw in the fact that their skills are there to protect hundreds of lives at a time, and you'd think they would be well-paid.
Making regulations that prohibit them from minor distractions in the course of this endless boredom will most likely lead to highly detrimental results. I would not be surprised to see that there were more incidents with pilots falling asleep than previously as these regulations begin to take effect.
Very disappointing, FAA. Maybe you could instead start regulating things that jack up travel prices, waste fuel, and cause extreme delays, like airlines selling more flights in and out of airports than the runways can physically accommodate in a given amount of time. Or like the stupid TSA requirements that we are subjected to as passengers on commercial airlines.
The airlines are failing, and it's their own damn fault. Unnecessary regulation like this is a waste of taxpayers' time and money, and pushes prospective customers and employees away from the industry.
Stupid (Score:2)
I'd rather have a pilot who's staying awake updating his facebook status than one who's nodding off staring out the window at the night sky.
The airplanes are controlled autonomously in flight, and can even take off and land themselves. Pilots are unnecessary unless you need to change course mid-flight for a storm or mechanical or political problem.
As for distraction, all you have to do is set a waypoint alarm, and heed it when it goes off.
We'll never really know what those two dopes were doing when they ov
Want your pilots to focus? (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe we should trust pilot's judgement (Score:2)
Maybe theey should (Score:2)
I can't get behind that... needs something else (Score:3, Insightful)
It's bad enough being a passenger on lengthy flights. Being a pilot and making those trips over and over and over again? There has to be a way to allow the brain to relax at certain times. Studies have shown that 20 minutes is the optimal amount of time for class room lessons because after that, the mind tends to start drifting and losing focus. If this is true, then it is likely that a similar situation occurs for truck drivers and airline pilots. If a pilot's mind is going to drift while doing something, I'd rather it not be while watching controls and dials. There should be other protocols and procedures at play instead of simply demanding super-human focus and concentration of commercial pilots.
Solving the wrong problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't realy about 10 to 12 hour flights. This is the FAA telling American pilots to not over shoot Minnesota again.
"Put the fucking game boy down and fly the plane"
not so much to ask.
nobody said your job would be fun.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They get paid about as much as a McDonalds restaurant manager.
Or much less. In many cases the person who cleans your plane after a flight is paid considerably more than the person who just flew your plane to its destination. I kid you not.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the Mile High Club [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, Captain Sully retired because he turned 60, which is the mandatory retirement age. He was and is certainly angry about the pay cuts and the pension devaluations, but that is not the REASON he retired; he was forced to.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice bit of metric snobbery there, but the airline industry still uses knots to indicate airspeed and feet to indicate altitude....
Re: (Score:2)
This is old data, but: http://www.pea.com/imd/airline-pilot-salary.asp [pea.com]
There was nothing around $17k/yr. Do you happen to have any reference for what you're claiming, or are you making up stats on the spot to prove your point?
Re: (Score:2)
According to Salary.com, median pay for a small jet co-pilot is right around $80k, only the bottom 10% make less than $55k. And that's both small jet and co-pilot. For a large jet, captain position the median is about $115k and the 10% mark is $90k.