Hi Folks --

I suppose you've heard about the Airbus A320 that ditched 
in the Hudson river, in the shadow of downtown Manhattan, on
Thursday.  As crashes go, it must be considered a success,
since there were no fatalities and almost no serious 
injuries.

Around here it has received around-the-clock news coverage.
The commentators are amazed at how lucky the passengers
were.  They all use the same word:  It's a miracle.




I disagree.  Any time your airliner loses both engines is
*not* your lucky day.  And while a successful ditching may 
involve a small amount of luck, it mainly and primarily
involves a large amount of skill.  

As I have said on other occasions, part of the romance of 
aviation is to do everything better than necessary. If the 
runway is 50 feet wide and the airplaneā€™s wheelbase is 10 
feet wide, it is technically possible to land on the left 
half or the right half of the runway. But everybody tries 
to land exactly on the centerline. If you were off by one 
foot last time, you try to be off by half a foot next time.

This is done partly for fun, just for the challenge of it, 
but there is also a serious purpose to it.  Safety is not 
directly affected by your best performance, or even your 
average performance. What matters, directly, is your 
worst-ever performance. This is called the _minimax_
principle.

I don't pretend to know for sure, but I suspect the
Airbus-in-the-Hudson story revolves around a pilot who
is very, very, very good at his job.

===========

I mention this on the FlightGear list because simulators
(in general) play an important role in pilot training
(in general).

Heretofore FlightGear has not played much of a role in
real pilot training, but it has the potential to do so.

I reckon virtually everyone on this list would like it
to go in that direction.  The question is, who is willing
to do the work necessary to take it in that direction?

This requires a certain amount of forward thinking.  As
the saying goes, you do not build a bridge based on the
number of people who drove across the river _before_ the 
bridge was built.  By that criterion, no bridges would 
ever get built.

By the same token you shouldn't judge the value of FGFS
features based on the current user community.  Right now
the user community consists of folks who care about
nice-looking liveries and nice-looking foliage, because
that's what FlightGear provides.  Folks who care about
cockpit instruments that actually work properly have to 
go elsewhere.

The community I'm talking about is not small.  The last
time I checked, there were 700,000 rated pilots in the US 
alone.  Practically all of them have PCs.  There is a need
for simulator-based training that is not being met by the
multimillion dollar simulators at FlightSafey Inc. and
suchlike.  It is not yet being met by FlightGear ... but
that could change.

So, how about it?  Who is serious about going down that
road?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Reply via email to