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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
First-hand video of a BRS deployment.
In article C7nzh.316$II6.159@trnddc07, "Casey Wilson"
wrote: "Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... both arrive at the same waypoint at the same time (and the same altitude, which is made more probable by conventional altitude assignments). -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. In addition to being pompous and stupid, you are extremely rude. If you want a discussion about see-and-avoid, open a thread with that subject. QUIT HIJACKING THREADS!! do not feed the trolls -- Bob Noel Looking for a sig the lawyers will hate |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
First-hand video of a BRS deployment.
How about the classic "What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the
ocean? A good start." Bob Noel wrote: Bob Noel Looking for a sig the lawyers will hate |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
First-hand video of a BRS deployment.
"Casey Wilson" wrote in message news:sj9zh.704$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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 05:14 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 |