Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
It's Time to Ban Aviation
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page 1, 2  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
flysideways
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 151

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:02 pm    Post subject: It's Time to Ban Aviation Reply with quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21040410

I know far too many people that have died because of aviation. It is time to bring an end to this terror and horror.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
notageek
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 120
Location: Bangalore, India

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I immediately thought of this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21038128 when I read your thread title.

(Not trying to hijack.)
_________________
The problem is not the problem. The problem is your attitude about the problem. Do you understand? --Capt Jack Sparrow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 4158
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To be fair the pilot did ask to be redirected since he was concerned about weather conditions (freezing fog) and was denied.
flying still is really safe (just when things go wrong bam... eg a jumbo takes out 200ppl not just 4 in one car)...

The Boeing thing is bad, really bad... the fleet needs to be ground for this battery issue - prob water ingress.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lame allusion is lame.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1224
Location: Jefferson, USA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Banning alcohol would bring you far better results.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ban cranes! And everything with sharp edges. Also anything not chewable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bogamol
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 01 Nov 2009
Posts: 84
Location: Detroit, Michigan - The Home of Rock and Roll

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prenj wrote:
Ban cranes! And everything with sharp edges. Also anything not chewable.


What?! You'll break a tooth on that. Ban chewable things too!
_________________
Freedom is the oxygen of the soul. -Moshe Dayan

Juniper wrote:
I fail to see the relevance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
notageek
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 120
Location: Bangalore, India

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, he's right. That might bring down the world's population.

Hang on, those are storks.

Okay carry on.
_________________
The problem is not the problem. The problem is your attitude about the problem. Do you understand? --Capt Jack Sparrow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16113
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naib wrote:
To be fair the pilot did ask to be redirected since he was concerned about weather conditions (freezing fog) and was denied.
Once again reinforcing the need to ban government.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 4158
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The report is interestingly non-conclusive

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2013/boeing_787/interim_report_B787_3-7-13.pdf

The FAA were smart enough to add additional clauses surrounding LiIon batteries, something the battery did not actually fulfil...
I'm surprised, these FAA special conditions would have been flown down to the battery manufacturer as requirements, requirements which they would have had to demonstrate compliance to... so either Boeing didn't show due diligence in requirement matching or the tests which the batteries were subjected to were non-representative of likely failure mode.

The fact the exact cause of the failure is just as bad, means the planes are going to be grounded for longer and very soon a few airlines are going to be calling for some form of compensation
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16113
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seems like they bit off more than they could chew in going with a completely new design and process.

Maybe they should take a play from MS and tweak it a bit, then release it as the 797.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naib wrote:
flying still is really safe (just when things go wrong bam... eg a jumbo takes out 200ppl not just 4 in one car)...

I wouldn't characterize flying a helicopter at low altitude in fog as "really safe".

It's about as safe as standing atop a fuel truck with an explosive vest on while speeding through town in the middle of an icy blizzard and power blackout with your lights off and an intoxicated, legally blind driver behind the wheel.
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naib wrote:
The report is interestingly non-conclusive

That is because it is only an interim report.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 4158
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
Naib wrote:
The report is interestingly non-conclusive

That is because it is only an interim report.

I have read enough of these to know how they flow ;)
even at this stage a targeted root-cause will exist. look at the last major FAA report, the one with the engine fanout on the A380. At this stage they had isolated it to the main fan, the following week RR then identified the exact part and the reason which explained everything

This... "we know it is the battery, we see liquid and gas and ... but no idea what instigated it
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ban batteries!
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
petrjanda
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 1557
Location: Brno, Czech Republic

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
Naib wrote:
flying still is really safe (just when things go wrong bam... eg a jumbo takes out 200ppl not just 4 in one car)...

I wouldn't characterize flying a helicopter at low altitude in fog as "really safe".

It's about as safe as standing atop a fuel truck with an explosive vest on while speeding through town in the middle of an icy blizzard and power blackout with your lights off and an intoxicated, legally blind driver behind the wheel.


Quite frankly, if the weather was that bad he couldn't see a crane, and he wasn't flying IFR(i'd assume so because he was solo and flying under clouds), he should have just put that thing down somewhere or not fly at all.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2267210/London-helicopter-crash-Pilot-Pete-Barnes-warned-weather-TWICE-millionaire-Richard-Caring.html

Theres a picture of the crane in the fog. Quite surprised he hasn't hit anything else. There would have been max 500M visibility which wouldn't be legal even under Special VFR.

Perhaps complacency had set in is mind after his 12,000 hours.
_________________
There is, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. If that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded. - Gautama Siddharta
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

petrjanda wrote:
Quite frankly, if the weather was that bad he couldn't see a crane, and he wasn't flying IFR(i'd assume so because he was solo and flying under clouds), he should have just put that thing down somewhere or not fly at all.

Exactly. Especially over a major city.
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 4158
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

which brings me back to the other point that the pilot did the right thing and asked for a redirect. For some reason the traffic controller denied it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
petrjanda
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 1557
Location: Brno, Czech Republic

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naib wrote:
which brings me back to the other point that the pilot did the right thing and asked for a redirect. For some reason the traffic controller denied it.


But according to the article he got a permission to land on some helipad in the city (which was his alternate aerodrome I suppose).

Unfortunately it happens so often in aviation that pilot doesn't have the time to plan properly but instead relies on the fact that weather " looks OK from here". Lot of people died this way.
_________________
There is, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. If that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded. - Gautama Siddharta
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
petrjanda
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 1557
Location: Brno, Czech Republic

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
petrjanda wrote:
Quite frankly, if the weather was that bad he couldn't see a crane, and he wasn't flying IFR(i'd assume so because he was solo and flying under clouds), he should have just put that thing down somewhere or not fly at all.

Exactly. Especially over a major city.


But it's still odd, even in city one usually has plenty of space to land a helicopter. Agusta 109 is not a massive chopper, and due to stress of weather you can pretty much land anywhere you want - a park, a football field, someone's backyard etc, but then he would have to explain to the relevant aviation authority why he took off for starters. Instead he kept pushing on. I really do think that he suffered the invincibility syndrome some pilots with lot of hours have.
_________________
There is, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. If that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded. - Gautama Siddharta
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bigun
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 1974

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

notageek wrote:
(Not trying to hijack.)


:lol:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
notageek
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 120
Location: Bangalore, India

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thread. I meant thread.
_________________
The problem is not the problem. The problem is your attitude about the problem. Do you understand? --Capt Jack Sparrow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The answer is simple: ban private helicopters. They're like assault rifles: nobody really needs one, and only the Government can be trusted with them (they never crash helicopters or shoot people with assault rifles).
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flysideways
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 151

PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 2:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naib wrote:
richk449 wrote:
Naib wrote:
The report is interestingly non-conclusive

That is because it is only an interim report.

I have read enough of these to know how they flow ;)
even at this stage a targeted root-cause will exist. look at the last major FAA report, the one with the engine fanout on the A380. At this stage they had isolated it to the main fan, the following week RR then identified the exact part and the reason which explained everything

This... "we know it is the battery, we see liquid and gas and ... but no idea what instigated it


There are a lot of airliners that came with Ni-Cads but got retroed to sealed lead acid. Just one supplier of many.

Fires with no close place to land never have good endings.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flysideways
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 151

PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Economist wrote:
The irony is that, in doing so, all it saved was 18kg (40lb) per plane—about the same, one expert noted, as a single piece of baggage.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum