Curtis Olson wrote:
if we had to ditch the ship out there, it
could have been really ugly ...
Yeah, I hear a water landing in a ship is pretty hard. Better than a runway
landing in a ship though :)
Josh
--
This SF.net
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:57:55 -0500, Josh wrote in message
497a0523.9070...@atlantech.net:
Curtis Olson wrote:
if we had to ditch the ship out there, it
could have been really ugly ...
Yeah, I hear a water landing in a ship is pretty hard. Better than a
runway landing in a ship though :)
Well, my point was that just the part about having to sit in the water (not
considering the impact) would still be ugly.
Curt.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Josh Babcock jbabc...@atlantech.netwrote:
Curtis Olson wrote:
if we had to ditch the ship out there, it
could have been really
The autopilot would have been the easy part. I offered to do one having
just demonstrated--on the HiMAT vehicle---an autopilot that performed
flight test maneuver automatically. The pilot, Fitz Fulton, refused. He
believed he could fly manually from a remote location.
Curtis Olson wrote:
On
John Denker wrote:
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
Hi all,
I'm not a RL pilot, but I suppose that piloting in real life is hard
because most of the time nothing special happens. Then the concentration
is hard to maintain to a high level and in case of emergency follow the
procedures (aircraft/flying aeras), adapt to the environment (buildings,
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:00:32 -0800, John wrote in message
49727f30.90...@mminternet.com:
Curtis Olson wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 6:00 PM, syd adams adams@gmail.com
wrote:
So, how about it? Who is serious about going down that
road?
I am , for one, which is why I dont get
On 01/18/2009 02:22 AM, Erik Hofman wrote:
I still think the passengers where lucky to have such a skilled pilot at
the controls...
Not too long ago one of my relatives came up to me and said:
Him: I've always thought you were incredibly lucky, and I
wondered why. Now I begin to
All these crews are lucky, if you want to call it that.
They're lucky because there's a lot of crashworthiness
and even ditchworthiness built into the airframe, and
because the crews train like crazy, far in excess of
the already-strict FAA requirements.
Yes, the entire flight crew was
On 01/18/2009 08:28 AM, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
With that said, I'd be careful about claiming ditchworthiness.
It *is* something they design for. It's required by the FARs.
Newer aircraft are better at it than older aircraft. And that's
not a fluke or any kind of miracle. It's something they
Jon wrote:
With that said, I'd be careful about claiming ditchworthiness.
John Denker replied:
It *is* something they design for. It's required by the FARs.
In words, sure. In designing for efficiency, revenue, robustness, etc. and
ditchworthiness, I don't believe you can design for the
On 01/18/2009 12:53 PM, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
Newer aircraft are better at it than older aircraft. And that's
not a fluke or any kind of miracle. It's something they design
for.
You are simply asserting what aircraft manufacturers are *supposed*
to do.
You think I am just making this
The above applies to everybody. There are additional requirements
if you want to be certified for extended overwater flight.
And no, I'm not making that up, either. You you can read for
yourself at e.g.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFar.nsf/FARSBySect
I don't want to take sides in this discussion, I just wanted to share
some information about the Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID)--or as
it was known at Dryden, Crash In the Desert.
The story of what happened depends on who you talk to. I remember that
the FAA was not very happy with the
Thanks. I do remember seeing the in-cabin movies of the unhappy dummies that
were part of the study.
JB
From: Lee Duke [mailto:d...@rainmountainsystems.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 7:54 PM
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] airliner ditching
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
Thanks. I do remember seeing the in-cabin movies of the unhappy dummies
that were part of the study.
You know, if NASA did screw up the final test, maybe someone should suggest
the mythbusters redo this on their show?
I've got the
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
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
So, how about it? Who is serious about going down that
road?
I am , for one, which is why I dont get the apperent need to impress the
general user community... I didn't think we were creating a game here...
I'm currently more interested in getting the glass cockpits to behave
realistically , but
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
Many of you recall the hijacked airliner than ran out of fuel ten or
fifteen years ago. The resulting ditching didn't turn out so well, with most
people drowning. That was on the ocean near the shore. In the recent case,
it appears that
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 6:00 PM, syd adams adams@gmail.com wrote:
So, how about it? Who is serious about going down that
road?
I am , for one, which is why I dont get the apperent need to impress the
general user community... I didn't think we were creating a game here...
I'm currently
syd adams wrote:
Input is always appreciated , with facts and docs to back it up , but not
the its wrong because I say so kind of help ...
Well put !
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
On 01/17/2009 05:16 PM, Curtis Olson wrote:
http://www.atcflightsim.com/index.html
If I may be permitted to answer in kind:
http://www.atcflightsim.com/pricing.html
--
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 6:30 PM, John Denker j...@av8n.com wrote:
On 01/17/2009 05:16 PM, Curtis Olson wrote:
http://www.atcflightsim.com/index.html
If I may be permitted to answer in kind:
http://www.atcflightsim.com/pricing.html
You are expecting a complete cockpit enclosure,
Curtis Olson wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 6:00 PM, syd adams adams@gmail.com wrote:
So, how about it? Who is serious about going down that
road?
I am , for one, which is why I dont get the apperent need to impress the
general user community... I didn't think we were creating a game
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 7:00 PM, John Wojnaroski cas...@mminternet.comwrote:
Or for that matter
http://www.lfstech.com/index.html
Good point. :-)
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/
--
This
Curtis Olson wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 6:30 PM, John Denker j...@av8n.com wrote:
On 01/17/2009 05:16 PM, Curtis Olson wrote:
http://www.atcflightsim.com/index.html
If I may be permitted to answer in kind:
http://www.atcflightsim.com/pricing.html
You are expecting
27 matches
Mail list logo
