First-hand video of a BRS deployment.

"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.

"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

On Feb 10, 2:29 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:
I got the following link to this video via the Matronics Zenith e-mail
list. What's interesting and fascinating about it is that it contains video
from a cockpit camera that shows the impending mid-air collision and the
cockpit view when the aircraft hits the ground under the chute:

http://www.turbopilot.com/copa/image3/brs.wmv

I guess cockpit cameras are becoming common enough that this sort of video
would be inevitable.

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.


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

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.

"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!!

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

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!

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.

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)

Hate to say it, but he just happens to be right. It's actually a pretty
widely acknowledged by pilots.

mike

"Jim Carriere" wrote in message
news:wrpzh.2391$z6.1016@bigfe9...
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!