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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
"Sam Spade" wrote in message news That is difficult to say. Perhaps he was sufficently higher passing Love that it would have taken more time to land there. An example I am familar with is passing Ontario Airport on the way into Los Angeles. You are usually at 14,000 feet passing Ontario and on a fuel efficent profile to land at LAX. That is a judgment call that can go either way. I wouldn't second guess his decision to stick with a company airport that may have been on the best fuel-efficient descent profile. It is part of the review that I am sure was conducted about his decisions. Nonetheless, at the time, that decision was not for anyone in ATC to question. Only after the fact was it reasonable to determine what, in fact, were the nearest suitable airports. DAL would have been only about 4 miles closer that DFW, but DFW has about 4600' more runway. |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Jim Carter wrote:
If the aircrew "needed to get on the ground right away", why did they overfly other suitable airports? That action alone could have suggested to ATC that this wasn't that big an issue. Love Field has equipment to deal with air carrier class aircraft and they flew right past it even after being asked about landing there. I don't know. It isn't relevant to what happened. During a declared emergency the PIC gets what he or she needs. The questions come later. That didn't happen in this case and that is all that matters. Matt |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
"Jim Carter" wrote in message
t... If the aircrew "needed to get on the ground right away", why did they overfly other suitable airports? That action alone could have suggested to ATC that this wasn't that big an issue. Love Field has equipment to deal with air carrier class aircraft and they flew right past it even after being asked about landing there. Between Tulsa and DFW, which airports would those be? -- Matt Barrow Performance Homes, LLC Colorado Springs, CO |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Mxsmanic wrote:
Sam Spade writes: Not me. I did most of my training and check rides in *real* flight simulators. Same thing. Another artificial distinction being made. Please explain the artificial distinction? |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Jim Macklin wrote:
The FAA has a simulator for ATC training at OKC, they can simulate traffic and weather to reproduce any condition at any airport. As they have a simulator at OKC to model and simulate TERPs criteria. These types of simulators are carefully crafted, then certified in accordance with professional protocols before they are used for in-service purposes. Bill Gates does not exactly do that for his PC game. ~ |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Sam Spade writes:
Please explain the artificial distinction? Real flight vs. simulation. Now "real" simulation vs. "unreal" (?) simulation. The real distinction, of course, is between "whatever Mxsmanic does" and "whatever I do," so it's a bit of a moving target. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Sam Spade writes:
As they have a simulator at OKC to model and simulate TERPs criteria. These types of simulators are carefully crafted, then certified in accordance with professional protocols before they are used for in-service purposes. Bill Gates does not exactly do that for his PC game. ~ The main difference is certification, and certification is arbitrary. MSFS is not certified for most uses because there's no market for it, it would impose arbitrary and not necessarily useful or desirable constraints on the product, and it would multiply the price by at least a factor of ten. Certification doesn't mean realism, utility, or completeness. It just means certification. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Mxsmanic wrote:
Sam Spade writes: As they have a simulator at OKC to model and simulate TERPs criteria. These types of simulators are carefully crafted, then certified in accordance with professional protocols before they are used for in-service purposes. Bill Gates does not exactly do that for his PC game. ~ The main difference is certification, and certification is arbitrary. MSFS is not certified for most uses because there's no market for it, it would impose arbitrary and not necessarily useful or desirable constraints on the product, and it would multiply the price by at least a factor of ten. Certification doesn't mean realism, utility, or completeness. It just means certification. O-kay |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Mxsmanic wrote:
Sam Spade writes: Please explain the artificial distinction? Real flight vs. simulation. Now "real" simulation vs. "unreal" (?) simulation. The real distinction, of course, is between "whatever Mxsmanic does" and "whatever I do," so it's a bit of a moving target. You have created your own "prison." A $11 million Level D flight simulator is sufficently faithful to the actual aircraft that no aircraft time is required to train and acquire a type rating or conduct periodic training to maintain qualifications. Level D has high-level visual simulation of good and minimum visibility conditions, and so forth. You seem to keep insisting that MSFS does good enough to be considered a simulator not unlike a CERTIFIED Level D simulator. Perhaps I am overstating your position in that respect. Nonetheless, you insist in proclaiming MSFS as a faithful flight simulator on some level, which is absolutely NOT! I have previously provided you with fatal issues with MSFS, which, as I recall you stated, "I will check those out." Of course, that meant you did not accept my claims and, according to your form, you did not bother to report your findings in the group. |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Sam Spade writes:
A $11 million Level D flight simulator is sufficently faithful to the actual aircraft that no aircraft time is required to train and acquire a type rating or conduct periodic training to maintain qualifications. As soon as I have $11 million, I'm going to get me one of those. You seem to keep insisting that MSFS does good enough to be considered a simulator not unlike a CERTIFIED Level D simulator. It all depends on what type of simulation you want. And certification does not equate to realism, it just equates to ... certification. Perhaps I am overstating your position in that respect. You are. Nonetheless, you insist in proclaiming MSFS as a faithful flight simulator on some level, which is absolutely NOT! It absolutely is. It depends on the level you choose. Why such hostility towards PC simulators, I wonder? Something tells me that no matter how good they get, someone will always find a reason why they aren't "good enough." I've been using them for a long time, and they've come a long way. I just finished a nice little trip from Phoenix to Payson, which taught me that I'm not very good at recognizing landmarks, even in areas I know well. I guess I'll have to practice that more. I know how to use all the fancy navigation stuff, but I'm rather awkward when I have only a VOR/DME to guide me (plus visual information). -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Handling Characteristics of the Flight Design CTSW | John | Piloting | 9 | March 14th 07 03:38 AM |
American Flight 191 - Recovery Procedure | Rick Umali | Piloting | 17 | November 5th 06 03:35 AM |
Angel Flight fuel discounts | John Doe | Piloting | 4 | January 20th 06 01:24 PM |
Passenger attempts to hijack American Eagles flight | C J Campbell | Piloting | 5 | January 11th 04 04:04 PM |
American Safety Flight Systems seat belts -- Help! | Paul Millner | Owning | 1 | July 7th 03 10:10 PM |