Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If he lost power in one engine just after rotation, the plane was doomed.
This is positively untrue with this type of aircraft. If it is a simple engine failure and the failed engine's propeller feathers it will climb on a single engine.
It was certified for this. The aircraft would have not been certified for the types of operations it preforms if it could not climb if an engine fails on takeoff.
Disclaimer - The airplane is being operated within the performance envelopes it was tested and certified.
If it was in a sim of sorts then that falls into the category of a lot of maybes.
Your statement just said that if a pilot trains to proficiency in a simulator it does not mater. Because when the emergency happens in a "real" airplane it won't be like the simulator.
Your statement just said that if a pilot trains to proficiency in a simulator it does not mater. Because when the emergency happens in a "real" airplane it won't be like the simulator.
Am I correct in understanding your statement?
No, what I am saying is that every time there is an aircraft down out come the simupilots that claim this and that as if it is all fact when the most experience they probably have is little more than what gets displayed on the screen of a laptop.
The fact is no one knows for certain and if it was all as simple as those saying it is, then it wouldn't have happened most likely. Disaster has a way of bringing complexity to anything.
If people are going to claim this and that (like having trained in the aircraft) then by golly they should also state what that experience is. Taking a few lessons in a Cessna and then being a screen jocky doesn't qualify one to state one way or another what that plane could or could not do. They forget that it was the pilot could or could not do and why, something no amount of gaming will ever answer.
No, what I am saying is that every time there is an aircraft down out come the simupilots that claim this and that as if it is all fact when the most experience they probably have is little more than what gets displayed on the screen of a laptop.
The fact is no one knows for certain and if it was all as simple as those saying it is, then it wouldn't have happened most likely. Disaster has a way of bringing complexity to anything.
If people are going to claim this and that (like having trained in the aircraft) then by golly they should also state what that experience is. Taking a few lessons in a Cessna and then being a screen jocky doesn't qualify one to state one way or another what that plane could or could not do. They forget that it was the pilot could or could not do and why, something no amount of gaming will ever answer.
Good post... Most accidents owe themselves to a series of events.. What may seem like the most 'obvious' may be a factor, but usually only one of quite a few.. Even the most experienced pilot of that a/c type, the ATR-600 could only speculate on cause because the cause is the many factors revealed through methodical investigation that unearth's each one and finally connecting all the pieces together.
Honestly, the question in my mind is why was he flying over the city in a situation to have to avoid the skyscrapers? Does the normal takeoff route go straight over the heart of the city or did he steer over it trying to return to the airport?
No, what I am saying is that every time there is an aircraft down out come the simupilots that claim this and that as if it is all fact when the most experience they probably have is little more than what gets displayed on the screen of a laptop.
The fact is no one knows for certain and if it was all as simple as those saying it is, then it wouldn't have happened most likely. Disaster has a way of bringing complexity to anything.
If people are going to claim this and that (like having trained in the aircraft) then by golly they should also state what that experience is. Taking a few lessons in a Cessna and then being a screen jocky doesn't qualify one to state one way or another what that plane could or could not do. They forget that it was the pilot could or could not do and why, something no amount of gaming will ever answer.
Ah, I see the difference in what we are talking about When you say simulator you think something you would have at home....on a desk.
When I say simulator I automatically think a Level D simulator.
If you are trained to proficiency on engine failure at V1, with a RVR of 600 feet, and negative auto feather in a Level D simulator then you will be able to handle them in a real airplane.
No, what I am saying is that every time there is an aircraft down out come the simupilots that claim this and that as if it is all fact when the most experience they probably have is little more than what gets displayed on the screen of a laptop.
The fact is no one knows for certain and if it was all as simple as those saying it is, then it wouldn't have happened most likely. Disaster has a way of bringing complexity to anything.
If people are going to claim this and that (like having trained in the aircraft) then by golly they should also state what that experience is. Taking a few lessons in a Cessna and then being a screen jocky doesn't qualify one to state one way or another what that plane could or could not do. They forget that it was the pilot could or could not do and why, something no amount of gaming will ever answer.
If you were knowledgeable enough, you could easily separate the aviation professionals from the fanboys in this thread. An aviation literate individual can easily determine by the poster's use of terminology and the phraseology they use in describing events, which camp they fall into.
The posters you're challenging here, are the real deal. I think you have a casual interest in aviation, and just drop into this forum to troll on occasion.
If you were knowledgeable enough, you could easily separate the aviation professionals from the fanboys in this thread. An aviation literate individual can easily determine by the poster's use of terminology and the phraseology they use in describing events, which camp they fall into.
The posters you're challenging here, are the real deal. I think you have a casual interest in aviation, and just drop into this forum to troll on occasion.
I was thinking the same thing, I've been following this forum for a few weeks now and even I can spot who the people are that have real world experience with this stuff, mainly SluggoF16 and wheelsup. Mack, maybe you should elaborate as to why you hold yourself up above someone like wheelsup, whom you appear to have a real hard-on for? What exactly is YOUR real world experience that gives you the upper hand in the discussion?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you say simulator you think something you would have at home....on a desk.
