thanx for the pics they are great!

exceedingly annoying, if i had to look at him, without hearing him speak, he would STILL be annoying.

all in all a brave man!!

I think he is on a par with the thunderbirds commentator i heard at waddington…….

get gmax and the sdk needed for msfs. either that or fsds, never used this tho. if you know cad programs or are in the animation field you’ll find gmax is a good tool. i find it a lot more restrictive operation-wise when compared to some of the cad programs i use, but it does the job. have to say i have never attempted an msfs aircraft.

my simflight is done with x-plane and that has its own inbuilt design program.

http://www.x-plane.com

I NEEEEEED one of those!!

excellent photo’s all round.

considering the condition of other aircraft in the photo’s and the condition of the ‘new’ 1.44 I would surmise that the 1.44 has at least been remanufactured with better/modern materials, including composite nose cone it would seem. I also note a lack of panel lines on the ‘new’ photo’s.

so it is possible that 144 is a new aircraft (does the company still get adequate funding for a new aircraft like this??) with new/more modern systems and materials.

it is also possible that 144 is a re-engineered/manufactured existing aircraft.

at a place like zhukovskiy, how easy is it for companies to carry out secret trials when there are coach tours and ‘teams’ of obviously hardcore (and i might say ‘backed’ 🙂 ) spotters?????????????

thanx for that post distiller, it mostly makes for interesting objective reading.

Airbus plainly have nothing to hide, and the only problem they face is the fact that statistically thare is more chance of injury during a practice evac. why impose harm during a practice if it can be done differently but safely?

the pyschology paper points the finger of blame at hesitation due to height and or confusing constructions. given the urgency of an evacuation procedure, i certainly wouldnt be hesitating!!

The problem of injury due to jams at the bottom of the slide seems to be somthing that needs dealing with.

I agree that actual practices need to be carried out, but a full scale evac could (and is allowed by faa regs by the looks of things) be missed quite legally and acceptably.

if there is research going on at cranfield, then you will have a hard time trying to disprove the validity of it.

coanda

apparantly airbus have researched and helped put together (monetarily and otherwise) ground breaking research in the field of emergency evacuation, as they were breaking new ground, i seem to recall. there was a RAeS article on it a while ago.

perhaps the caa is happy with this information??

to expand on the first post, it would appear that stick position is not proportional to pitch angle. therefore trying to match the two is definately a dodgy thing to do.

I seem to remember this maxim when i was learning to fly:

if in doubt eyes OUT.

if there is a horizon USE it, if there isnt then your full ifr, and you should follow the prescribed procedures, not make them up. the instruments give correct indications and cross referancing should give the pilot everything he needs to know.

i’d like to read the full report asap.

is it company procedure for manual climb outs?? i though the idea these days was for the autopilot to be put on as soon as min safety alt was reached??

wys, can you give an ‘in the know’ comment in general on these procedures??