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 » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

First-hand video of a BRS deployment.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 10th 07, 04:13 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default First-hand video of a BRS deployment.

chris writes:

Aircraft can be incredibly hard to see, believe it or not.....


If they are hard to see 200 feet away, how am I supposed to find and maintain
visual separation with aircraft that are five miles away?

This is an aspect of simulation that I find amusing. Some simmers get nervous
if they cannot see traffic that's 15 miles away, even though everything within
a ten-mile radius has huge red letters flashing above it that indicate
aircraft type, call sign, and other stuff. I turn all the labeling off. If I
can't see the aircraft, I can't see it. If I can see it but it's just a dot,
there's no way that I can know the call sign or type. But at least that's a
lot more like real life. It is surprisingly rare that I can even see an
aircraft well enough to figure out the general type of airframe, and I figure
that if I were close enough to read the tail number off the plane for ATC in
real life, it would already be too late.

Fortunately, mathematics can help. If everyone flies around completely at
random, it's statistically wildly improbable that any aircraft will ever
collide. In fact, traffic patterns, airways, altitude restrictions, and
navaids actually increase the chances of a collision, rather than decreasing
them. And the more accurate navigation becomes, the greater the danger,
because you have aircraft aiming for waypoints with an accuracy of only a few
feet, which is comparable to the dimensions of the airplane and thus
guarantees a collision if they both arrive at the same waypoint at the same
time (and the same altitude, which is made more probable by conventional
altitude assignments).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
  #12  
Old February 10th 07, 06:18 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Casey Wilson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default First-hand video of a BRS deployment.


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...


both arrive at the same waypoint at the same
time (and the same altitude, which is made more probable by conventional
altitude assignments).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.


In addition to being pompous and stupid, you are extremely rude. If you want
a discussion about see-and-avoid, open a thread with that subject.

QUIT HIJACKING THREADS!!


  #13  
Old February 10th 07, 07:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,374
Default First-hand video of a BRS deployment.

In article C7nzh.316$II6.159@trnddc07, "Casey Wilson"
wrote:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...


both arrive at the same waypoint at the same
time (and the same altitude, which is made more probable by conventional
altitude assignments).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.


In addition to being pompous and stupid, you are extremely rude. If you want
a discussion about see-and-avoid, open a thread with that subject.

QUIT HIJACKING THREADS!!


do not feed the trolls

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

  #14  
Old February 10th 07, 07:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Scott[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 367
Default First-hand video of a BRS deployment.

How about the classic "What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the
ocean? A good start."



Bob Noel wrote:



Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

  #15  
Old February 10th 07, 07:30 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Darkwing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 604
Default First-hand video of a BRS deployment.


"Casey Wilson" wrote in message
news:sj9zh.704$E71.654@trnddc04...

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

.

I'm surprised that the pilot believes he is alive today because of the
parachute. The aircraft doesn't look severely damaged; the control
surfaces
are in place. What would have prevented him from gliding to a landing?

While I have no problem with pilots saving themselves with a parachute if
they
wish to do so, it seems like this one at least gave up pretty quickly.
And
how did he manage not to see the other aicraft? The weather certainly
looked
clear.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.



NOTICE!!!!
Mxsmanic is NOT a pilot, has NEVER flown an aircraft and is NOT qualified
to
issue competent information regarding any aspect of the operation of any
aircraft.



Gets old doesn't it...

------------------------------------
DW


  #16  
Old February 10th 07, 08:56 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Jim Carriere
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default First-hand video of a BRS deployment.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Fortunately, mathematics can help. If everyone flies around completely at
random, it's statistically wildly improbable that any aircraft will ever
collide. In fact, traffic patterns, airways, altitude restrictions, and
navaids actually increase the chances of a collision, rather than decreasing


This has to be one of the funniest things I've read in a long LONG time!

Thanks for the laugh!
  #17  
Old February 10th 07, 09:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
buttman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 361
Default First-hand video of a BRS deployment.

On Feb 10, 11:56 am, Jim Carriere wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Fortunately, mathematics can help. If everyone flies around completely at
random, it's statistically wildly improbable that any aircraft will ever
collide. In fact, traffic patterns, airways, altitude restrictions, and
navaids actually increase the chances of a collision, rather than decreasing


This has to be one of the funniest things I've read in a long LONG time!

Thanks for the laugh!


What exactly is so funny about it? He is right.

  #18  
Old February 10th 07, 09:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Bob Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default First-hand video of a BRS deployment.

Jim Carriere wrote

Mxsmanic wrote:
Fortunately, mathematics can help. If everyone flies around
completely at random, it's statistically wildly improbable that any
aircraft will ever collide. In fact, traffic patterns, airways,
altitude restrictions, and navaids actually increase the chances of a
collision, rather than decreasing


This has to be one of the funniest things I've read in a long LONG
time!

Thanks for the laugh!


Sorry Jim, I think that the laugh might be on you. In the late 1950s,
the Rand Corp under contract to the US government to study the future
of the Air Traffic Control System, came to the exact same conclusion.
And yes, they did use predictions of future air traffic growth.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI B-707 B-727
PanAm (retired)
  #19  
Old February 10th 07, 10:06 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Jim Carriere
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default First-hand video of a BRS deployment.

Bob Moore wrote:
Jim Carriere wrote

Mxsmanic wrote:
Fortunately, mathematics can help. If everyone flies around
completely at random, it's statistically wildly improbable that any
aircraft will ever collide. In fact, traffic patterns, airways,
altitude restrictions, and navaids actually increase the chances of a
collision, rather than decreasing

This has to be one of the funniest things I've read in a long LONG
time!

Thanks for the laugh!


Sorry Jim, I think that the laugh might be on you. In the late 1950s,
the Rand Corp under contract to the US government to study the future
of the Air Traffic Control System, came to the exact same conclusion.
And yes, they did use predictions of future air traffic growth.


Hmm! At first glance that conclusion seems counterintuitive, but I
guess you learn something new every day.
  #20  
Old February 10th 07, 10:20 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.piloting
Morgans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 146
Default First-hand video of a BRS deployment.


"Jim Carriere" wrote

Hmm! At first glance that conclusion seems counterintuitive, but I guess
you learn something new every day.


But leaving an event up to chance as the avoidance mechanism, is not
something that sits well with people. I have to feel that way, in that the
results of "winning" the odds are so dire.
--
Jim in NC

 




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
Cirrus chute deployment -- an incredible story Michael182/G Instrument Flight Rules 48 July 14th 05 03:52 PM
Parachute fails to save SR-22 Capt.Doug Piloting 72 February 10th 05 06:14 AM
North Korea Denounces US Stealth Bomber Deployment Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 July 2nd 04 09:20 PM
C-130 Unit Completes Two Year Deployment Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 September 30th 03 10:04 PM
Airmen gear up for another 120-day deployment Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 September 24th 03 12:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.