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

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.

That.

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.

Ross Richardson wrote:
When Andrew's post came across at 9:49 it was one line only with no
attached threads.

That's interesting. Andrew's post is timestamped 10:49 on my machine (EDST). The
post to which he replied is stamped 9:52. W-2000, Mozilla.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

Jay Honeck wrote:

I'm the same way with cut-and-paste operations. I *know* that "CTRL-C"
works just as well as "ALT-E-C", and takes one less keystroke, too -- but I
still use the old Lotus 1-2-3 "ALT-E-C" as often as not...

And I go to the Edit menu 'cause I'm not comfortable using ctrl-C. That's the
kill signal for a Unix system, and I coded on those for too many years.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

"Chris Colohan" wrote

In any case, on usenet it is often considered polite to quote from
previous messages to give some context. The main reason for this has
nothing to do with the fact that some of us use non-threaded
newsreaders---instead, it is because it takes time for messages to be
sent between computers. Depending on where you are reading from, the
messages in a newsgroup may arrive in a different order. Without a
little quote to put a message in context, this can cause confusion.

I totally agree, about quoting some of the text, and when it makes sense,
the author- as I did in this reply. It really is not hard.

The only reason I do not sometimes quote the most recent author to which I
am replying, is when I want to quote two authors, or two posts back, then I
leave out both of the authors. I think it reduces the chances that someone
will think that you are attributing someone else's words to them.

In my case, (with OE) it is unsure for me to determine who someone is
responding to, because I keep a hefty kill-file. I just do not want to
waste my time reading some nutcases.

In that case, the kill-filed person does not show up in the thread headers
at all, and it almost looks like it is a response to someone earlier in the
thread.

So for many reason, it stands that it is polite to quote some of the person
that you are responding to. It is just as bad to quote all of the post,
along with several other's posts before that.
--
Jim in NC

"John Clonts" wrote

Do you know about "read next unread"? Control-U and/or add the "Next
Unread" button to your button bar...

That is exactly how I bring order to the groups.
--
Jim in NC

Who's on first?

("Morgans" wrtoe)
Who's on first?


http://www.moviegoods.com/movie_product.asp?master_movie_id=13484&movie_nss= 19510703


Montblack :-)