Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!adt.UUCP!madd
From: madd@adt.UUCP (jim frost)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi
Subject: Re: flight's concept of a 'good landing'
Message-ID: <8902171600.AA21990@adt.uucp>
Date: 17 Feb 89 16:00:12 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 26

>>I take exception at the way flight rates landings.

>Perhaps because you're supposed to land on the *runway*.
>Flight grades you on how fast you're going when you land, how much
>vertical descent you've got, how far off the numbers you are, and how
>much drift and heading error you've got...on the _runway_.

Yes, I know, but it upsets me a little because it won't refuel you.  A
minor point, considering I probably crash a billion dollars worth of
planes a day so what's a throw-away cessna, but still...

>Try flying the 747 inverted with the cockpit under the runway sometime.

I've never tried that but my co-worker has always been amused at the
ability to do barrel-rolls and loops in a 747.  I'm kind of amused at
what you can do in a cessna too.  I keep hoping that some new version
will have the wings fall off as they should.  I'm also waiting for the
day that I shoot someone down in dog and the plane comes apart and
falls to earth in flaming pieces.  This particular effect would have
the bonus of making it easier to avoid planes you've destroyed (I hate
the shoot/dodge-explosion sequence).

Yours for a more realistic way to waste time,

jim frost
madd@bu-it.bu.edu