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 wrote:
> Curtis Olson wrote:
> if we had to ditch the ship out there, it
> > could have been really ugly ...
>
> Yeah, I
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 t
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
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
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 auto
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
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
> 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
> Look
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 ma
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 fo
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 t
> 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 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 underst
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
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>So, how about it? Who is serious about going down that
> >>road?
> >>I am , for one, which is why I dont
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,
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 succe
Curtis Olson wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 6:30 PM, John Denker 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
>>
>>
>
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 7:00 PM, John Wojnaroski wrote:
> Or for that matter
>
> http://www.lfstech.com/index.html
Good point. :-)
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/
--
This SF.net email is spons
Curtis Olson wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 6:00 PM, syd adams 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...
>>
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 6:30 PM, John Denker 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, instruments, r
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 Co
"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 Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 6:00 PM, syd adams 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 more interested
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
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 s
> 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 receive
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-clo
27 matches
Mail list logo
