‘Evolutionary Aspects of Flight Instruments Designs‘ - how’s that sound? For example, - as a name of a subject matter in a course of aeronautical engineering. In my opinion, it may be quite an educative subject.
One of those aspects could cover a topic of evolutionary changes that have happened along the line of developing such an important flight instrument as an artificial horizon. The course could even be more interesting if it went over some ‘design philosophy specifics and essentials existed in different countries’.
In these days you would probably be able to create such a course on your own, using a whole wealth of information available on the Internet. As for a reason, ‘why would you need this kind of course‘, I would say, ‘I’m just a curious person’.
But it seems the aforementioned subject in concern is going to become a reason for another hot debate that may ensue after some new circumstances have just reinforced belief in probable ‘pilot error‘, following the preliminary reports by the MAK downplaying theories of ‘engine fire‘, ‘midair explosion’, or other ‘fatal plane malfunction‘ among other factors possibly related to the Boeing-737-500 crash at Perm.
I’m monitoring the chat forums, making remarks now and then, watching the Russian TV online, communicating with some ‘relevant people’. An ongoing discussion is now with concern to some ‘artificial horizons’ indication differences‘ existed between ‘Russian’ and ‘Western’ built instruments, and how those differences might play a role in a situation where a crew, - used over many years to flying on one type of instruments, - is to handle a loss of situational awareness due to misinterpreting the readings from another type of instruments.
I’ll keep you posted.
Recent Comments