> "Martin" == Martin Spott writes:
Martin> Brian Schack wrote:
>> There are several huge and very unnatural walls in the
>> Himalayas, both running NS and EW. I'll give the line of
>> latitude or longitude that the wall runs along, and the end
>> coordinates of the walls:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
> Thanks. I do remember seeing the in-cabin movies of the unhappy dummies
> that were part of the study.
>
You know, if NASA did screw up the final test, maybe someone should suggest
the mythbusters redo this on their show?
I've got the auto
Thanks. I do remember seeing the in-cabin movies of the unhappy dummies that
were part of the study.
JB
From: Lee Duke [mailto:d...@rainmountainsystems.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 7:54 PM
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] airliner ditching
I think the link I sent to the CID movie was bad. Try this:
http://www1.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/CID/Medium/EM-0004-01.mpg
Here are some photos:
http://www1.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/CID/Large/index.html
--
This SF.n
I don't want to take sides in this discussion, I just wanted to share
some information about the Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID)--or as
it was known at Dryden, Crash In the Desert.
The story of what happened depends on who you talk to. I remember that
the FAA was not very happy with the
> The above applies to everybody. There are additional requirements
> if you want to be certified for extended overwater flight.
>
> And no, I'm not making that up, either. You you can read for
> yourself at e.g.
>
> http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFar.nsf/FARSBySect
> Look
On 01/18/2009 12:53 PM, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
>> Newer aircraft are better at it than older aircraft. And that's
>> not a fluke or any kind of "miracle". It's something they design
>> for.
>
> You are simply asserting what aircraft manufacturers are *supposed*
> to do.
You think I am just ma
Jon wrote:
> > With that said, I'd be careful about claiming "ditchworthiness".
>
John Denker replied:
> It *is* something they design for. It's required by the FARs.
In words, sure. In designing for efficiency, revenue, robustness, etc. and
"ditchworthiness", I don't believe you can design fo
* Heiko Schulz -- Sunday 18 January 2009:
> He put his code in the forum, and I think it is worth
> enough not only to have a look into than comitting it
> into CVS!
I'd like Stuart to have a look, as he already has such
a script. Maybe ideas of the less sophisticated one can
be used in the othe
Excuse me- just a teststill in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html
But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html
--
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to t
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:06:34 + (GMT), Heiko wrote in message
<278702.2899...@web23203.mail.ird.yahoo.com>:
> Hmm... Checked, should work now.
> Can anyone confirm that?
..yup.
>
> > -Stuart
> >
> > PS: Heiko - could you check your Reply-To header on your
> > posts? At the moment,
> > eve
Hmm... Checked, should work now.
Can anyone confirm that?
> -Stuart
>
> PS: Heiko - could you check your Reply-To header on your
> posts? At the moment,
> every time I hit reply to one of your fg-dev posts, it
> comes up with your email address
> rather than the -dev list email address.
>
>
>
On 01/18/2009 08:28 AM, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
> With that said, I'd be careful about claiming "ditchworthiness".
It *is* something they design for. It's required by the FARs.
Newer aircraft are better at it than older aircraft. And that's
not a fluke or any kind of "miracle". It's something t
Heiko Schulz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A smart man from poland scripted a very nice failure management for use in
> 1.9.0
> and CVS. I tested it and it works great.
>
> He put his code in the forum, and I think it is worth enough not only to have
> a
> look into than comitting it into CVS!
>
> Here
> All these crews are lucky, if you want to call it that.
> They're lucky because there's a lot of crashworthiness
> and even ditchworthiness built into the airframe, and
> because the crews train like crazy, far in excess of
> the already-strict FAA requirements.
Yes, the entire flight crew was
On 01/18/2009 02:22 AM, Erik Hofman wrote:
> I still think the passengers where lucky to have such a skilled pilot at
> the controls...
Not too long ago one of my relatives came up to me and said:
Him: I've always thought you were incredibly lucky, and I
wondered why. Now I begin to underst
>
> As far as I know, FG *is taking* the good direction because
> it is free
> to adapt to each situation quite easily. Indeed I'm
> trying to introduce
> some failures in a specific aircraft:
> - give the instruments the possibility to give wrong
> information
> (especially IAS)
> - fuel loss
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:00:32 -0800, John wrote in message
<49727f30.90...@mminternet.com>:
> Curtis Olson wrote:
>
> >On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 6:00 PM, syd adams
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>So, how about it? Who is serious about going down that
> >>road?
> >>I am , for one, which is why I dont
Martin Spott a écrit :
> "Csaba Hal??sz" wrote:
>
>
>> I have never been near a solaris machine, but sure, post errors and we'll
>> see :)
>>
>
> Thanks for your offer, no obligation implicated ;-)
>
> I put the output of 'make -k' here:
>
> http://foxtrot.mgras.net/static/SimGear_SunSt
Hi all,
I'm not a RL pilot, but I suppose that piloting in real life is hard
because most of the time nothing special happens. Then the concentration
is hard to maintain to a high level and in case of emergency follow the
procedures (aircraft/flying aeras), adapt to the environment (buildings,
Hi Tom,
This sounds exciting, thanks for the explanation (I even think I know a
few names behind the job descriptions). It's good to see developers to
step up to the daunting task of getting every little last bit right for
certification.
BTW. I agree on the competitiveness part.
Erik
---
John Denker wrote:
> Around here it has received around-the-clock news coverage.
> The commentators are amazed at how lucky the passengers
> were. They all use the same word: It's a miracle.
>
> I disagree. Any time your airliner loses both engines is
> *not* your lucky day. And while a succe
22 matches
Mail list logo
