• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Re: Another Airbus down ....

"Brian Morrison" <bdm@fenrir.org.uk> wrote in message
news:20090701204751.0b0c4a50@peterson.fenrir.org.uk...
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 20:34:16 +0100
> "Brian Reay" <see@website.invalid> wrote:
>
>> V1 is no guarantee of reaching V2, even in a multi with a problem.
>
> Procedures have been developed to avoid this happening, but of course
> it still can if either something unanticipated happens

Which is exactly the point I was making. The assumption that after you've
reach V1 you will automatically be taking the problem into the air was what
I was challenging.

That is how things are designed to work but that doesn't mean they will work
that way.  That is the first thing you learn when you embark on
understanding a safety critical system design.

I've seen this argument before- between a pilot (who knew the physics) and
an (self appointed) expert who made, almost, the same statement as you did.

The pilot's case was exactly as I've presented it (in content). He'd had a
major failure between V1 and V2 and "rolled into the gravel". The expert
seemed to think he should have taken off etc. It took a while but,
eventually, the expert acknowledged the physics. If V2>V1 and you don't have
enough power to reach V2, you aren't going to take much into the air.  He
was good enough to buy the drinks afterwards ;-)

--
73
Brian G8OSN/W8OSN
www.g8osn.org.uk

Antworten