[Lups]

Originally Posted by Brigand

How do you know there is a manual car driver in the bar?

He tells you

I actually don't know anyone that can only drive an automatic, pretty much everyone I know learned to drive in a manual and owns one. Mainly big diesels or 3.0l cars are automatics.

I'd love to say we're not that pathetic, but we are.

The group ass kissing we manual owners do is hilarious, I've never seen that back home in Europe, since for example in my country you don't get a full license without being able to handle a manual. I know only one person with this special license, he lost a leg in an accident and the prosthesis is not good with a clutch.

Here things are different. If i want to be left alone in any social occasion, first thing I blurt is that I'm an atheist, second that I drive an M4, if it's a tough and resilient crowd I tell them it's a manual. Then if that doesn't help, I just tell them my balls are really hairy. Sure, the last one is a lie but nobody has checked or asked to see what's under my skirt.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by B-1Pilot

Not to derail, but your example is way off.

Here's a more realistic comparison... A Cessna is like a pedal car your kid operates in your driveway. A 747 is like a double trailer semi on the autobahn. Just because the autobahns nice concrete roads with people who ostensibly know how to operate there, doesn't mean you would put your kid in a pedal car out there with that semi. That giant semi has its own challenges, not so much because of its own size, but because of the scale that all the others out on the road have imposed.

Oh by the way... add Kabul or Kandahar Afghanistan to your "hard" list for 747s... seeing them come in there is some sketchy shit.

Off Topic:
Truly I think your comparison is far less realistic for it doesn't at all speak the fact that the range of skills needed to operate any of those crafts are vastly different. The truth is that I think that if I found myself flying in a small jet, I'd sooner have a pilot who's got lots of experience flying small jets than have a pilot who's got lots of experience flying big jets. Similarly, I'd feel safer in a small prop plane with a pilot who mostly flies prop planes under similar environmental and airport circumstances rather than jets under any circumstances.

I don't really think it's all that accurate to think or claim one type of pilot is better than the other because the skills needed vary quite widely, particularly at the extremes of aviation where the differences in skills will matter most.

I cited the "Mt. Everest" airport because it's the only one I know of for which there is no "do over" option for misjudged landing approaches. The pilot, once he commits to being on approach, has no place to turn around and try again and there is literally a mountain at the end of the 1600 foot runway, that is, the runway's pavement stops and and just feet later the mountain stands and at that point on the mountain, it's wider than the runway -- hell, it's wider than the whole town -- and goes basically straight up hundreds of feet.



And that's what you see on takeoff, never mind that there's a 2000 foot drop at the end of the runway when you take off. The next photo shows what you see at the other end of the runway upon landing.

• http://www.markhorrell.com/blog/2011...ly-that-scary/

Now, as I said, the skillsets differ, but find me a 747 pilot that has fly his 747 into conditions comparable (given the size of the planes) to those at Lukla. I know San Diego, St. Maarten, or even Gibraltar are no cake walk, but I don't think they are even remotely close.

All the best.

[....,,,,..,,..]

Originally Posted by tony20009

Off Topic:
Truly I think your comparison is far less realistic for it doesn't at all speak the fact that the range of skills needed to operate any of those crafts are vastly different. The truth is that I think that if I found myself flying in a small jet, I'd sooner have a pilot who's got lots of experience flying small jets than have a pilot who's got lots of experience flying big jets. Similarly, I'd feel safer in a small prop plane with a pilot who mostly flies prop planes under similar environmental and airport circumstances rather than jets under any circumstances.

I don't really think it's all that accurate to think or claim one type of pilot is better than the other because the skills needed vary quite widely, particularly at the extremes of aviation where the differences in skills will matter most.

I cited the "Mt. Everest" airport because it's the only one I know of for which there is no "do over" option for misjudged landing approaches. The pilot, once he commits to being on approach, has no place to turn around and try again and there is literally a mountain at the end of the 1600 foot runway, that is, the runway's pavement stops and and just feet later the mountain stands and at that point on the mountain, it's wider than the runway -- hell, it's wider than the whole town -- and goes basically straight up hundreds of feet

And that's what you see on takeoff, never mind that there's a 2000 foot drop at the end of the runway when you take off. The next photo shows what you see at the other end of the runway upon ]

Now, as I said, the skillsets differ, but find me a 747 pilot that has fly his 747 into conditions comparable (given the size of the planes) to those at Lukla. I know San Diego, St. Maarten, or even Gibraltar are no cake walk, but I don't think they are even remotely close.

All the best.

Yes landing and taking off from places such as Tenzing-Hillary Airport is entertaining (been there).
The most dangerous airports are those with large volumes of mixed traffic, local variations in atmospherics (cross winds, pressure), all this coupled with distractions.
The small light aircraft will likely have limited flight systems and predominately stick and eye balls, with a single pilot.
The larger aircraft will have 4 sets of eye balls, however they have much more to watch out for and invariably less visibility.

Both hard and require a skill set specific to both, unlike car drivers, you don't get that many bad pilots (yes you get ones that take risks), bad pilots don't last long.

Worlds worst airports ?

Ones where you have to wear / sit on body armour, lights out steep angle approach and rockets / motar shells impacting the peri track and main area.

Those are scary especially when coupled with high Altitude, high temperatures, high AUW.



Btw, Manual drivers can drive pretty much any car , auto drivers can't

[captainaudio]

Don't assume ALL AT drivers don't know how to drive manuals although at this point in time I am sure a lot of them can't.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by captainaudio

Don't assume ALL AT drivers don't know how to drive manuals although at this point in time I am sure a lot of them can't.

I wouldn't But I would assume 80% of American drivers can't drive manual, but a majority of drivers in Europe and Asia can. We also like cup holders. Sad.

[Bbb34]

Always amusing

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7621350.html

[....,,,,..,,..]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

I wouldn't But I would assume 80% of American drivers can't drive manual, but a majority of drivers in Europe and Asia can. We also like cup holders. Sad.

That's basically what I was alluding to, mainly in regards to new drivers or those that only learnt originally on manual.

[bigjae1976]

With BMW's push to sell more cars and the creation of 1-8 series, I cars, GTS and SUV coupes...BMW Is seeing a significant shift in its customer base.

BMW includes more consumers and a decreasing percentage of enthusiasts. These consumers don't give a rat's ass about a manual transmission. It's this group that is driving BMW's sales growth and ability to survive as an independent car manufacturer.

As M cars become more mainstream, the voice of the enthusiast will become less influential and the death of the manual will follow. Driving experience and involvement is becoming irrelevant.

Hopefully BMW will continue to acknowledge it is the enthusiast who has given the BMW and M brand its reputation. IMO, that's the only reason why M cars still have manual transmissions.

[bmc335]

I hate the thought of losing the manual trans.. I hate the thought of losing the combustion engine to electric motors too (even with all the torque advantages..) But I guess it is happening and it sucks..

It's funny, I encourage and embrace advances in technology in everything else I come across I think. When it comes to cars, I want it in some ways (design, materials, electronics, etc..) but not at the expense of a manual trans attached to a combustion engine. I actually get sad when I think about not being able to have that...

Anyway, I think in the short term that the manual trans will go away for a bit, then make a small come back as a new 'purist' model type offered by the sport car industry. Something all about driving (as it 'used' to be). No computer getting in the way, light weight, great power to weight, stiff, and a manual box. The whole 'old is new' thing..

At least that is what I hope... In the mean time, I think I need to settle into something new that has a manual trans and keep it for the long haul. Maybe the M2 is the one to do that with..

[Bbb34]

Originally Posted by bmc335

.....It's funny, I encourage and embrace advances in technology in everything else I come across I think. When it comes to cars, I want it in some ways (design, materials, electronics, etc..) but not at the expense of a manual trans ......

Exactly how I feel as well.
I'll go a step further and ask if we should stop kids from learning how to write just because these days we are able to type and "swipe". Of course this is exaggeration, but to me manual to start with as a new driver is "driving basics". Only if you are able to drive both, deciding which one is right for you is a matter of well informed choice.

Credit to tony20009 for posting this earlier (for those of you who might've missed it), interesting read, and some good comments as well.

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/02/21/l...etter-drivers/

This has been my point all along. If new drivers in North America were given the chance, I'd bet money we'd see slightly different split between two types of transmission.

[Lee Nedirof]

Manual transmission require a person to be skilled as well as experienced enough to operate and control the whole system. Although, more and more people are falling for an automatic gearbox these days, manual gearbox may soon become a thing of the past.

[....,,,,..,,..]

Originally Posted by Lee Nedirof

Manual transmission require a person to be skilled as well as experienced enough to operate and control the whole system. Although, more and more people are falling for an automatic gearbox these days, manual gearbox may soon become a thing of the past.

Probably why we have majority manual and it's pretty much mainly Auto over there..

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Lups

I'd love to say we're not that pathetic, but we are.

The group ass kissing we manual owners do is hilarious, I've never seen that back home in Europe, since for example in my country you don't get a full license without being able to handle a manual. I know only one person with this special license, he lost a leg in an accident and the prosthesis is not good with a clutch.

Here things are different. If i want to be left alone in any social occasion, first thing I blurt is that I'm an atheist, second that I drive an M4, if it's a tough and resilient crowd I tell them it's a manual. Then if that doesn't help, I just tell them my balls are really hairy. Sure, the last one is a lie but nobody has checked or asked to see what's under my skirt.

I'm good on the first 3. Don't care about the 4th. And stay outta my kilt.

[RABAUKE]

The new Jag F-type has gone back to a manual:

http://driving.ca/jaguar/reviews/roa...f-type-s-coupe