XPost: rec.aviation.piloting, alt.usenet.kooks
From: BtB@BB.not.aaaaaaa
"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in news:o9Ndl.9$IT.4@newsfe04.iad:
>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
> news:gl7v4m$6j$11@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
>> the.sargon@gmail.com wrote in
>> news:ee6cc075-b399-4bf8-8b42-950a970cfdd0
@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com
>> :
>>
>>
>>> With all my arguments against worrying about the dip, er, 'ditch'
>>> switch I wonder of what benefit it would truly be in any condition
>>> other dead level calm? Ditching at see would (I would think) most
>>> often occur in conditions that would tear up the aircraft
>>> sufficiently to make 'the Switch' totally useless.
>>
>> Well, experience has certainly proven this to be the case!
>>>
>>> In this particular case it appears, from reading an article early
>>> on, that one or more pax may have partially opened a rear door and
>>> allowed water ingress and this, more than anything, contributed to
>>> the tail down sinking.
>>
>> Yeh, makes sense.
>>>
>>> It all comes down to basic necessities. I've had two high speed
>>> parachute malfunctions and my first reaction was "what do I do to
>>> get a chute open right f'ing now?" I didn't worry until after that
>>> occurred as to wear I would land or what I would have for dinner.
>>> You really have to experience something to realize the difference a
>>> 'real' emergency will make in your focus. Failure to maintain that
>>> focus results in the 'oh shit' moments.
>>
>>
>> Well, exactly, Even in the sim when a mad situation is thrown up
>> where things are forgotten, such as checklist items, but the
>> performance as whole
>> was exemplerary, the crew get kudos, not a kicking. It encourages the
>> kind of thinking that makes situations like this come out as they
>> did.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Are you drunk again?
>
Nope.
Is your wife beating you again?
Bertie
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
