Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] The attack on science is political, not philosophical Wrong; shoulda been "The role of simulation".



I'm a little confused by the statement "But it is completely different when you are landing" in the article. Power off landings are some of the most useful things you can do with a simulator. You learn all the things you should NOT do - without suffering the consequences. The pilots certainly used all their skills and training on this one.

Even relatively crude simulations like Microsoft Flight Simulator provide amazingly realistic training. Find someone who has a copy and try landing the sailplane provided. As a physicist you will certainly be impressed with the energy management required to land an aircraft that has to make the field on the first attempt. On all aircraft you can explore the relationship between pitch and airspeed, and power/drag and rate of descent. School systems could never afford to give students the real life experience to learn these things, but can readily supply it with a $39 piece of software.

Bob at PC



________________________________

From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu on behalf of Bernard Cleyet
Sent: Sun 1/20/2008 2:25 PM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] The attack on science is political, not philosophical Wrong; shoulda been "The role of simulation".



They would have practiced losing power in training simulators, during take-off and at height. But it is completely different when you are landing." One passenger compared the crash landing to "being in a washing machine".


bc thanks UnderNews


LOCAL HEROES: BRITISH PLANE CRASH LANDING

GUARDIAN WRAP - "Jet lands just short of Heathrow runway, only one serious injury" may be an accurate description of yesterday's drama, but it is not the stuff of splashes. Most of the papers judge - correctly - that this particular near-miss makes gripping copy. . .

"There was not enough time to warn the 135 passengers, sitting oblivious to any problems, that they should adopt the brace position," opens the Times. "With just seconds to go before landing, Peter Burkill, captain of BA038, realized that his Boeing 777 was not going to make the runway rushing towards them."

Despite a sudden loss of power in both engines - the cause of which is the subject of much speculation - Burkill managed to skim the jet over the perimeter fence, "narrowly" (the Mirror) missing Gordon Brown's Jaguar as his entourage approached the airport. The PM's flight to China suffered minor delay.

There is general admiration for Burkill's skill in bringing the plane down largely intact, and for the cabin crew who evacuated the 777 in less than three minutes. The pilot should get "a medal as big as a frying pan", an airport worker said. "There is no training for this an the instruments are of no help whatsoever," an aviation expert tells the Sun. "It is what is called aircraftsmanship and pure instinct . . . They would have practiced losing power in training simulators, during take-off and at height. But it is completely different when you are landing." One passenger compared the crash landing to "being in a washing machine".

"If the incident had been bewildering and unpleasant to watch, its aftermath was somehow rather reassuring," writes Robert Hardman of the Mail, who witnessed it from the window to BA730 to Geneva. "If a plane can come all the way from China, crash-land and then allow its passengers to walk away, it may be a safer bet than the trip home along the M4."

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,2242855,00.html>http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,2242855,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3207393.ece ) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=508839&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/01/18/gordon-brown-just-25ft-from-death-in-heathrow-crash-89520-20289514/




LaMontagne, Bob wrote:



________________________________

From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu on behalf of Jack Uretsky
Sent: Thu 1/17/2008 10:05 PM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] The attack on science is political, not philosophical



But, Skip, isn't the context of the flight simulator wuite different?
1. When I got in a simulator, I already new how to fly and could relate
the simulator responses to those of a real aircraft.
2. When, as happened more than I care to remember, I screlwed up in the
simulator, I not only survived to screw up another day, but I could remind
myself that in real life I might not get the second chance.

I'm not convinced that the flight simulator analogy is applicable to the
classroom.
Regards,
Jack


------------------------

I am currently using a simulator to practice for my instrumtment rating. As Jack said - if you screw up, just restart the simulator. However, I remember my experiences with HS biology. I was given a worm to dissect and messed it up so badly that it looked like it went through a blender. I could not identify a single structure inside the worm. I would have learned a lot more from a simulator - can't reboot a shredded worm for a do-over.

Bob at PC

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l




_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l