A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Trial by newspaper



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old December 14th 05, 11:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.owning
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Trial by newspaper

Jay Beckman wrote:

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Paul kgyy" wrote in message
groups.com...

I feel sorry for the SW pilots who went through the fence at Midway
last week. Now every edition of the local newspapers runs articles by
lawyers and journalists second-guessing every decision made on a
difficult approach - quartering tail wind, marginal visibility, fair
braking, short runway.

I'd sure hate to have my every flying decision subjected to this kind
of scrutiny.


So trial by newgroup is any better?



At least in here there are people with actual flying experience (unlike
99.999% of the media.)


True, but we still enjoy speculating just as the media folks do!

Matt
  #42  
Old December 14th 05, 11:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.owning
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Trial by newspaper



Mark Hansen wrote:

On 12/14/2005 07:55, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Andrew;
No one knows which post you are answering if you don't reference in
some way.
In this case, you're either nailing me with this, or the initial post.
Dudley Henriques



Andrew was responding to Paul, which is clearly visible when viewing
the thread.


I only have displayed unread posts so if I read the original post it may
well be his post is first next time I check the news.
  #43  
Old December 14th 05, 11:42 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.owning
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Trial by newspaper

Charles Oppermann wrote:

I'll be curious to know how the Autobrakes usage (if in fact that is true)
affects the outcome. On one hand, the Autobrakes can prevent wheel lockup
and keep the aircraft under control. On the otherhand, manual braking
should be able to result in shorter ground rolls, generally.


I disagree that this is true generally. Everything I've read about
anti-lock braking systems suggests that they will outperform humans
under all but a few special conditions. The special conditions are the
cases where locking the wheels is beneficial to a short stop. These
conditions are basically deep snow or other soft material such as sand.
In these cases, the material builds up in front of the lock tires and
increases the resistance of the tire moving through the material (forms
a bow wave essential). However on dry or wet pavement, ice, light snow,
light layer of sand or loose dirt, etc., the ABS wins.

I have seen a few tests (auto and motorcycle, not airplane) where very
highly skilled racers have been able to outbrake and ABS vehicle on dry
pavement. However, the margin of winning was very small, and only a few
REALLY skilled drivers/riders could beat the ABS with any regularity.
And through in a patch of loose dirt or oil, etc., and, at least with
the motorcycles, the ABS would allow control to be maintained.


Matt
  #44  
Old December 15th 05, 12:05 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.owning
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Trial by newspaper

I disagree that this is true generally. Everything I've read about
anti-lock braking systems suggests that they will outperform humans under
all but a few special conditions. The special conditions are the cases
where locking the wheels is beneficial to a short stop.


This is good info, thanks. Here's a nugget from the NTSB report on the SWA
accident at Burbank:

"At the request of the Safety Board.s Airplane Performance Group, Boeing ran
stopping distance simulations for this accident wherein maximum, medium, and
minimum 737 autobrake applications, as well as maximum manual brake
applications, were simulated for wet runway conditions after the 182-knot
touchdown. These data indicate that the accident airplane would have
required about 5,000 feet of runway length after touchdown to stop using
maximum autobrakes and about 4,700 feet of runway length after touchdown to
stop using maximum manual brakes."

Still, that's not to say that manual braking would always result in shaving
off 300 feet of the ground roll. I guess it depends on the exact conditions
and pilot experience and technique.

My current opinion is that stomping on the brakes would have been worse than
allowing the Autobrake system, but that's just a WAG.

Charles Oppermann
http://spaces.msn.com/members/chuckop/


  #45  
Old December 15th 05, 12:39 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.owning
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Trial by newspaper

Thanks for pointing that out!

  #46  
Old December 15th 05, 12:50 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.owning
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Trial by newspaper


"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...
Thanks for pointing that out!


Pointing what out?


  #47  
Old December 15th 05, 01:20 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.owning
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Trial by newspaper

Charles Oppermann wrote:
I disagree that this is true generally. Everything I've read about
anti-lock braking systems suggests that they will outperform humans under
all but a few special conditions. The special conditions are the cases
where locking the wheels is beneficial to a short stop.



This is good info, thanks. Here's a nugget from the NTSB report on the SWA
accident at Burbank:

"At the request of the Safety Board.s Airplane Performance Group, Boeing ran
stopping distance simulations for this accident wherein maximum, medium, and
minimum 737 autobrake applications, as well as maximum manual brake
applications, were simulated for wet runway conditions after the 182-knot
touchdown. These data indicate that the accident airplane would have
required about 5,000 feet of runway length after touchdown to stop using
maximum autobrakes and about 4,700 feet of runway length after touchdown to
stop using maximum manual brakes."


These were simulations, though, and not tests. It would be curious to
see actual test data to see if the simulations are relatively accurate.


Still, that's not to say that manual braking would always result in shaving
off 300 feet of the ground roll. I guess it depends on the exact conditions
and pilot experience and technique.


Yes, every situation is somewhat unique.


My current opinion is that stomping on the brakes would have been worse than
allowing the Autobrake system, but that's just a WAG.


Impossible to know for sure. This is one case where it actually might
have been better if the airplane had left the runway earlier and got
into some grass or softer area. That might well have allowed a shorter
stop than did staying on the runway. Then again, if they'd have hit
something more solid by doing this, they might have saved the child's
life, but lost lives on the aircraft. No way to know.


Matt
  #48  
Old December 15th 05, 01:21 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.owning
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Trial by newspaper

I totally agree.....and my Outlook Express is reading this post normally
:-))
Dudley

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
oups.com...
Dudley

I was responding to the original post by Paul. I am sorry if it came
off as 'nailing' anyone. I totally agree with your sentiments about
lawyers trying to turn tragedy into income. However, the victim in
question was not an airline passenger or even a pedestrian at the
airport property. I did not suggest that the victims parents should sue
SWA. However, for their peace of mind, they do deserve an answer as to
why this freak accident happened.



  #49  
Old December 15th 05, 01:24 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.owning
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Trial by newspaper

That.

  #50  
Old December 15th 05, 01:34 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.owning
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Trial by newspaper



Tom Conner wrote:

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...

Thanks for pointing that out!



Pointing what out?


Nobody knows, it's just a mystery.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Air Force Spy Trial to Proceed Despite Modified Evidence Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 September 13th 04 01:31 AM
Flying Magazine Subscriptions Trial Offer Keith Aviation Marketplace 0 July 1st 04 05:24 PM
Stars and Stripes Offers Free Electronic Newspaper, By Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample, USA Otis Willie Naval Aviation 0 April 30th 04 09:45 PM
Stars and Stripes Offers Free Electronic Newspaper, By Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample, USA Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 April 30th 04 09:45 PM
Trial Of Woman Accused Of Killing Military Husband Postponed Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 January 24th 04 12:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.