PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - AF447 wreckage found
View Single Post
Old 28th Aug 2011, 00:00
  #3340 (permalink)  
DozyWannabe
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PJ2
Yeah, probably reads too "stiffly" but it's an entry into the ongoing discussion and may or may not be helpful. Another candidate for deletion, probably.
Not at all. For someone like myself it provides a balanced view of the issues from the perspective of a pilot, which is something I can do my level best to empathise with and "put myself in the shoes of" based on theory and my few AEF/AEG hours (along with a career path which also primarily uses me as a cog in the mechanism, despite my training and experience giving me more latitude if I need it), but can never wholly replicate, which is why any post I make on here automatically comes with caveats.

It's good stuff as far as I'm concerned - more please!

Originally Posted by deSitter
That's just BS - A=B means A and B stand for one and the same thing. Period.
Not quite, as always context is everything. As far as informatics (i.e computer) algebra goes, it depends on the definition of A and B. If they are both constants, then what you say is true (or to elaborate, A and B share the same value, even if they do not refer to the same "object"), that said, if two constants are defined as having the same value, then one of those constants is effectively redundant. If either are variables, then the value of either can change at a later stage, rendering the expression "A=B" transient.

(Hark at me, talking discrete maths at 2am on a Sunday morning - how rock'n'roll am I? )

Originally Posted by BOAC
(Noted ). Let's face it, that SHOULD be enough given a basic competence in the licensing and training of airline crews.
Just noticed this - and you're right, technically it *should* be enough, and with the new stall recovery procedures one would hope this was a plugged "hole-in-the-cheese"*. However, non-practiced responses and training to correctly identify an *actual* stall still worry me. I've said this before (Hell, at this point there's very little I *haven't* said before, so thanks for putting up with me), but how much of an airline's training budget would be eaten up by once a year taking a single-engined trainer up and practicing an *actual* stall recovery or ten? As a touch-typist and guitarist I'm well aware of how much I rely on muscle memory - surely it must be similar with pilots?

* - I'm aware that the emerging new techniques in determining behaviour patterns, including our own PBL's "why-because" work, give a far more detailed and complete picture of accident sequences, however I still think the "holes-in-the-cheese" method is a great way of rendering this stuff comprehensible to the layman, as well as requiring a few paragraphs to summarise, as opposed to a dissertation!

Last edited by DozyWannabe; 28th Aug 2011 at 01:57.
DozyWannabe is offline