Lisp - IFR [was: macro-biology]

Author

IFR [was: macro-biology]

Christopher C. Stacy

2004-05-21, 12:31 am

>>>>> On 20 May 2004 22:54:18 -0400, David Steuber ("David") writes:

David> rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) writes:[color=darkred]

David> Drifting off topic for a bit...

David> Yes indeed. And by definition, in IFR conditions you have no visible
David> horizon to rely upon. You MUST use the artificial horizon in the
David> center of your display. Of course, if that isn't working, an IFR
David> rated pilot should be able to tell that something is amis from the
David> heading indicator, airspeed, etc all acting as they would as you
David> tighten your spiral into a spin. Hopefully you figure that out before
David> JFK jr did (who wasn't IFR rated).

Just a nitpick: instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) imply
that you should be flying under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR).
However, there are other "IFR conditions" (I don't think that's
a formally defined phrase). If you are in the Positive Control
Airspace, for example, you are required to be flying IFR, even
though it may be perfectly clear and you can see the surface
and for hundreds of miles out.

Flying on a partially functioning instrument panel is extremely taxing,
and represents a serious emergency situation. This is one reason why
in addition to all the duplicate sets of instruments, including a third
redundant self-powered attitude indicator -- so that you don't ever have
fly without an artificial horizon -- passenger airlines also feature
redundant pilots. Single-pilot partial-panel IFR is something that
instrument-rated pilots train for, but pulling it off successfully
in real live and (by definition) unexpected conditions is not easy.

In the case of JFK Jr., he was not even instrument rated.
He was under artificial pressure to make the trip (for a wedding),
was carrying passengers (eg. sitting in the cockpit next to him),
and (due to his poor planning) "unexpectedly" encountered IMC
conditions, at night, that he apparently figured he could handle.
(I bet he didn't even realize that he was in IMC until he was out
of control; that's how it usually goes. An unexpected transition
from visual to instrument conditions is often momentarily confusing
even for instrument-rated pilots.) The resulting deaths were
textbook predictable. The government's extraordinary recovery
efforts were nothing like what happens when regular people crash
in exactly the same way.

I dunno how we got on this rant, though.

David Steuber

2004-05-21, 4:31 am

cstacy@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:

>
>
> I dunno how we got on this rant, though.

Heh. Yeah. I can trace it back to the above quoted text. Although
for a full causality analysis, we need a grand unification theory that
explains the big bang.

I'm rather out of date with my FAR/AIM stuff. Flying is an expensive
hobby that I fell out of a long time back but I still once in a while
use it in metephors.

Perhaps I should have just said I was programming with incomplete
specifications, but that's pretty much the industry norm.

--
I wouldn't mind the rat race so much if it wasn't for all the damn cats.

Sponsored Links