FS used to story line flight 5191

airboatr · Post by **airboatr** » 29 Aug 2006, 15:07

Interseting use of FS to story line the take off of
Comair 5191
I thought it to be somewhat surprising the AC panel used
in the crj; the weather program used; and a few other things
but then again it did serve the purpose of giving
a general idea to the masses I supose...
also note the term used to discribe FS as if it a top secret
Program :roll: ooohhhh wooooo wooooo :roll:

link to video on page below
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/29/plane.crash/index.html

PS this post is about the use of FS not to coment on the
investigation of what happened, I'll leave that to the
professionals
Joe

Post by **Garry Russell** » 29 Aug 2006, 15:21

Thanks for the Joe

An interesting use of FS.

I wonder with the exact parameters dialed in how close to real life it becomes.

I suppose it all depends on exactly what you are trying to show.

BTW Thread intention understood, but thanks for making it clear Joe

Garry

TobyV · Post by **TobyV** » 29 Aug 2006, 16:05

Dont think MSFS counts as 'special software' :k:. Still assuming that whosever's CRJ they used is reasonably faithful to the real thing and the parameters they put in are as accurate as possible then it would give a fair idea at least that V1 is reached (if indeed it is reached at all, I'm not at all familiar with the performance of a CRJ) quite far down the runway.

I have seen accidents recreated in FS before. In fact there was a woman who posted a lot of accident videos on flightsim.com for FS98 some years ago.

Post by **Garry Russell** » 29 Aug 2006, 16:09

The term 'special' could be quite loose :think:

In this case meaning a special software for running flight simulation.

Not standard Home suite software......it needs to be bought for that purpose.

Garry

cstorey · Post by **cstorey** » 29 Aug 2006, 18:43

TobyV wrote: Still assuming that whosever's CRJ they used is reasonably faithful to the real thing and the parameters they put in are as accurate as possible then it would give a fair idea at least that V1 is reached (if indeed it is reached at all, I'm not at all familiar with the performance of a CRJ) quite far down the runway.

Did you mean V1 or Vr Toby? On a short or slippery runway V1 will be a much lower speed than on longer R/Ws because the effective accelerate/stop distance available is that much shorter - indeed there is a select band of R/Ws mostly in Nepal but including Courchavel where V1 is 0 kts! i.e. you are committed from brakes off. Other than gradient, R/W characterisitcs including length have no effect on Vr , but if the R/W is short, as you correctly say Vr will be reached after a greater proportion of R/W has been used than with a long R/W

phantom_fgr2 · Post by **phantom_fgr2** » 29 Aug 2006, 20:01

i like the default 737 panel in the video

DispatchDragon · Post by **DispatchDragon** » 29 Aug 2006, 20:20

I just watched the video

You would think that if they were going to do an in depth like that
they would have done their homework a little better - as Ben pointed out
nice 737 panel - when there are some good RJ panels out there - also they could have easily modified the afcad to remove the lights from the runway
My apologies and Im not trying to start ANY arguements TBH its just yellowdog sensationlist journalism

Leif

phantom_fgr2 · Post by **phantom_fgr2** » 29 Aug 2006, 20:54

it would have made sense for a multi-million dollar company like CNN to push Microsoft for a copy of FSX? maybe they're trying to push sales of FS9 one more time before it goes to that big old hard drive in the sky

TobyV · Post by **TobyV** » 29 Aug 2006, 21:26

Chris, I am not a pilot, I know you are (or were), so I bow to your superior knowledge, what you say makes sense, I am just used to the "nice day" conditions and ideal runway length where "V1, rotate... V2" occur almost at the speed at which one reads them off the page. Of course the decision speed occuring much earlier when there isnt sufficient runway on which to stop otherwise makes perfect sense.

Leif - agree about the sensationalistic journalism, hence my joke about the "specialist software". Its quite apparent sometimes when journalists flesh out important stories - which they dont actually have as much info on as they'd like - with some dubious quality information to make the article longer! :roll:

DispatchDragon · Post by **DispatchDragon** » 30 Aug 2006, 00:24

Gents

I think what comes to mind is this - I have repeated the departure sequence for an accident that I was very deeply involved in - not for morbid curiousity but for that old question Why??? - Even given I knew the outcome
prior to to trying I could NOT make the aircraft do what it did in real life - simply because I have NO idea what was going on in the pilot flying that day - so it is with this accident - you can load in all the parameters and make the model do the same thing the Comair aircraft do - we ALL know why it crashed - simple bloody physics - what we dont know is the thought process's that brought it about - from what I understand the preliminary CVR report is out and there is discussion on it by the crew as to why there were no lights - yet they still took off.....Im totally at a loss.

One item that has become apparent and will probably feature at a later date is that the impact did not kill the passengers - that the ensuing fire did, which beggars the question - are the emergency exits on regional jets sufficient for the 50 odd people they stuff into them??

Sorry I'll take my soap box

Leif