 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / July 2005Drunk jet pilots get 2 1/2 and 5 years in prison
This is great but why don't we take the same attitude with drunk drivers on the highways? Why do we have both a prez and a vp with convictions for DUI? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8662857/ July 21: Updated: 8:40 p.m. ET July 21, 2005 MIAMI - Two airline pilots who got behind the controls while drunk drew sentences Thursday of 2½ years and five years in prison. Thomas Cloyd, 47, of Peoria, Ariz., and co-pilot Christopher Hughes, 44, of Leander, Texas, settled into the cockpit of a Phoenix-bound America West jetliner in 2002 after a night of heavy drinking at a sports bar. They were arrested before the plane took off but after it had pushed away from the gate. They were later fired and were found guilty June 8 of operating an aircraft while drunk. (snip) The pilots had been at the bar up until about six hours before their departure time; federal rules say pilots cannot drink in the eight hours before a flight. Police stepped in after screeners smelled alcohol on their breath. Tested hours later, their blood-alcohol levels were above Floridas 0.08 percent limit for drunken driving, which includes aircraft, according to testimony. Their levels were probably much higher when they were in the cockpit, the experts said. Beer, wine and a martini Testimony showed that Cloyd and Hughes ran up a $122 tab and drank seven 34-ounce glasses and seven 16-ounce glasses of beer over six hours at the bar. At dinner before that, they had wine and Cloyd drank a martini, prosecutors said. The pilots had argued at trial that they were not drunk. They also contended they were not in control of their Airbus 319 carrying 117 passengers and crew because it was being towed by a ground crew when police ordered the jet back to the gate. Prosecutor Hillah Katz called that argument an insult. > This is great but why don't we take the same attitude with drunk > drivers on the highways? Why do we have both a prez and a vp with [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > (snip) I don't agree with this decision at all. It was right that the pilots were fired, as they clearly violated federal pilot rules by drinking within the 8 hours before takeoff. They should have known that they would lose their jobs for that But the evidence in this criminal trial was weak, at best. Nobody knew what the BAC level of the pilots was when the plane was pushed away from the gate. At best, they could say that the pilots were -probably- over .08, which is the limit in Florida (where they were supposed to take off, apparently). Also, the prosecution couldn't claim that the pilots were ever in control of the airplane. If there was a criminal offense of "ATTEMPTED DUI", then that might have applied in this case. MIGHT have applied. But then again, we're back to the problem of nobody knew what the BAC level was at the time of the "attempt". So not even "attempted" DUI could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The sentences seem awfully harsh, considering that there was gobs of reasonable doubt in this case. The plane never flew. The pilots never controlled the airplane, at all. It wasn't known if the pilots were drunk at the time of their arrest. Even if the BAC at arrest time was over .08, that doesn't necessarily mean that the pilots were incapable of safely flying to Phoenix. .08 is way too low to be called "drunk" by any reasonable thinking person. (before someone gets smart, I don't drink, at all, ever) Also, flying is a lot easier than driving. If someone could have told me that the pilots had a BAC of .16 (for example), I still would have boarded the airplane. Large commercial jets practically fly themselves, anyway. Any pilot who's reasonably experienced and not PASSED OUT drunk could probably manage to fly safely halfway across the country. No sweat! But the odd thing about this is, at time of boarding, the BAC level of the pilots was not known. Overall, these sentences seem very harsh, considering that the prosecution was nowhere near proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They were fired. That's what they deserved. Several years in prison, also? No, that's not called for. IMHO -Dave > Even if the BAC at arrest time was over .08, > that doesn't necessarily mean that the pilots were incapable of safely [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > themselves, anyway. Any pilot who's reasonably experienced and not PASSED > OUT drunk could probably manage to fly safely halfway across the country. You obviously know nothing about what it takes to actually take off and land an aircraft. And you admit that you don't know anything about being drunk. And if you get into any aircraft where the left-seater is at 0.16, you're a complete idiot. Commercial pilots know exactly what the rules are. The fact they *willfully* placed their passengers in danger by ignoring the rules is cause enough to put them in prison. I don't think the sentences are long enough. E.P. On 7/22/05 6:22 PM, in article 1122049326.874343.39930@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, >> Even if the BAC at arrest time was over .08, >> that doesn't necessarily mean that the pilots were incapable of safely [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > E.P. Agreed, and my father and brother are commercial pilots and can't believe they were so dumb. ej > You obviously know nothing about what it takes to actually take off and > land an aircraft. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > E.P. I didn't say I don't know anything about being drunk. Fact is, I haven't had a single drink since it was legal for me to drink. That doesn't mean I have NEVER had alcohol. Nor does it mean that I've never had TOO MUCH alcohol. Why do you believe that the passengers were in danger? Yeah, they might have been in danger. But there aren't enough facts known to make that determination. So what makes you think the passengers were in danger? You're just guessing, aren't you? The only fact known in this case is that the pilots violated federal rules by drinking within 8 hours of when they were supposed to fly. For that, they were fired. Seems reasonable. Jail also? Not reasonable, given the known facts, or lack thereof. -Dave > > You obviously know nothing about what it takes to actually take off and > > land an aircraft. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > they were fired. Seems reasonable. Jail also? Not reasonable, given the > known facts, or lack thereof. -Dave I understand your point, Dave, but I think that what you're forgetting is that those pilots were working, in effect, for the passengers on that airplane. When I buy a plane ticket, I expect that the pilots have obeyed the rules that they agreed to obey. If they aren't supposed to drink 8 hours before a flight, then I expect that they won't. Your main argument seems to be that they probably could have flown just fine. The problem is that society has a right to draw a line, as it were, in the sand. Some people can operate a car just fine at .10 BAC, while others struggle cold sober. But we have to have a point that we can agree on is the point that it's not acceptable to try. And just because he turns out fine the thousands of times a day that people drive above .08 BAC doesn't make it okay. While I agree that 5 years may seem harsh, I would suggest that it's an excellent warning to anyone considering violating the fly rules and getting in the cockpit of a piece of machinery that could kill over 100 people. scooter34 > While I agree that 5 years may seem harsh, I would suggest that it's an > excellent warning to anyone considering violating the fly rules and > getting in the cockpit of a piece of machinery that could kill over 100 > people. And if they crash the plane in a populated area, they could kill thousands. The sentences seem about right to me. Ted's quaint notion that they only drank within 8 hours of flying ignores the BAC - to have a BAC of .08, you've been drinking more recently than 8 hours ago. > > While I agree that 5 years may seem harsh, I would suggest that it's an > > excellent warning to anyone considering violating the fly rules and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > drank within 8 hours of flying ignores the BAC - to have a BAC of .08, > you've been drinking more recently than 8 hours ago. Well.... they could have been near death when they quit drinking 8 hours prior... nate (stop typing so loud!) On 7/22/05 7:21 PM, in article LW9Ee.2400$0C.1634@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote: >> While I agree that 5 years may seem harsh, I would suggest that it's an >> excellent warning to anyone considering violating the fly rules and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > drank within 8 hours of flying ignores the BAC - to have a BAC of .08, > you've been drinking more recently than 8 hours ago. Agreed. ej > I understand your point, Dave, but I think that what you're forgetting > is that those pilots were working, in effect, for the passengers on [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > scooter34 I would suggest that getting FIRED is a pretty good warning, also. I know if I was a pilot, I wouldn't risk drinking a few hours before a flight. I don't drink anyway, but if I did, I would follow the rules. These pilots screwed up, no doubt about it. They were rightfully punished by losing their jobs. They broke a rule. All else is speculation. Since when does someone go to prison because we "think" they might be guilty of something? I know the emotional reaction is "OMIGOD THEY WERE FLYING DRUNK! LOCK THEM UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY!!!" Those aren't the facts of the case, though. All that was proven is that they broke a rule. A rule for which they were FIRED, because they broke the rule. While I could somewhat agree that someone flying drunk deserves prison time, I think it's sad when someone goes to prison based on mere speculation. The emotional side says GOOD!, the logical side says ummmm, Hey, Wait a inute! -Dave > I would suggest that getting FIRED is a pretty good warning, also. I know > if I was a pilot, I wouldn't risk drinking a few hours before a flight. I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > All that was proven is that they broke a rule. A rule for which they were > FIRED, because they broke the rule. They were in the cockpit, ready to fly that plane. They had taken possession of it. They weren't there to do anything BUT fly the plane. Duh! Here's an analogy. Let's say you are drunk. In most jurisdictions, if you get in your car and you have the keys, you are guilty of drunk driving. You haven't actually put the key in the ignition, or started it, much less left the parking lot. But none the less, because you are in the vehicle, with the keys, ready to operate it, the law sees that you are clearly there to drive the thing. Same thing here. We aren't speculating when we say they were going to fly the plane drunk. They were legally drunk, they were in the cockpit, pushing away from the gate and about to make a scheduled flight. None of this is speculation, it's all hard facts. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what would have happened if nobody had said anything - you think they were going to get to the runway and suddenly decide to not fly the plane? Bo Raxo > We aren't speculating when we say they were going to fly the plane drunk. > They were legally drunk, they were in the cockpit, pushing away from the > gate and about to make a scheduled flight. None of this is speculation, > it's all hard facts. Really? Then you seem to know more about this case than the prosecuting attorneys did. Maybe you could enlighten us. What was the BAC of the pilots at the time that they boarded the airplane? Keep in mind that BAC levels can change up OR down over time. So while it's unlikely that the pilots were legally sober when -someone else was pushing the plane around-, it's still possible that they could have legally flown the airplane. It's possible. Not likely, but possible. Now go research "reasonable doubt". Just thinking that someone is probably guilty is NOT enough to convict. Our justice system is intentionally biased to allow some criminals to "walk" so that no innocent people will be unjustly punished. Not one. That's why this case is a clear failure. I'm saying that a drunk pilot should be punished. But this conviction was still wrong. How would you like to go to prison for five years for DUI because a prosecutor could prove that you had several drinks SIX HOURS before you drove your car? Not enough evidence you say? Gee, the prosecutor in this case had nothing else. A BAC level was measured, but not at the time of the alleged offense. Oh, and what if you were just in the car while it was being towed? Again, these pilots weren't charged with ATTEMPTED DUI. -Dave > > We aren't speculating when we say they were going to fly the plane drunk. > > They were legally drunk, they were in the cockpit, pushing away from the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > pilots at the time that they boarded the airplane? Keep in mind that BAC > levels can change up OR down over time. Uh, they can only go UP if you consume more alcohol, or if you are digesting alcohol already in your system. Otherwise, normal metabolic processes occur and they go down. So the only way their BAC could have gone up after the push away from the gate is if they had more alcohol in their gastriintestinal tract. Which means that during the course of the flight they would have become *more* drunk. That's a defense? > So while it's unlikely that the > pilots were legally sober when -someone else was pushing the plane around-, > it's still possible that they could have legally flown the airplane. It's > possible. Not likely, but possible. Not unless they were given alcoholic beverages after their arrest. I find this so unlikely as to be beyond a reasonable doubt. >Now go research "reasonable doubt". > Just thinking that someone is probably guilty is NOT enough to convict. Our > justice system is intentionally biased to allow some criminals to "walk" so > that no innocent people will be unjustly punished. Not one. That's why > this case is a clear failure. They were caught red-handed. There is no doubt, not the slightest. > I'm saying that a drunk pilot should be punished. But this conviction was > still wrong. How would you like to go to prison for five years for DUI > because a prosecutor could prove that you had several drinks SIX HOURS > before you drove your car? If I was driving a hundred paying passengers, as part of my job, yeah, a prison term seems about right. And if they had drinks six hours before the flight, then their BAC would not have gone up after the push away from the gate, now would it? They couldn't have possibly been caught any more red-handed. If you were behind the wheel of a car, keys in the ignition, with twice the legal BAC, tehn you would be convicted of DUI. Not attemtped anything, but DUI. I've known two people who were convicted in such scenarios - one had decided to sleep off the booze in her car, the other was sitting in a car, engine turned off, but keys in the ignition and the stereo playing while in the parking lot of a bar. Not even on a public street. Both were arrested for DUI. Both were convicted. Bo Raxo On 7/22/05 9:03 PM, in article SpbEe.2220$Uk3.1271@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote: > I've > known two people who were convicted in such scenarios - one had decided to > sleep off the booze in her car, the other was sitting in a car, engine > turned off, but keys in the ignition and the stereo playing while in the > parking lot of a bar. Not even on a public street. Both were arrested for > DUI. Both were convicted. I believe there is a thread in T.P.D. Where someone describes being arrested for DUI because he was listening to the stereo he had just installed and was sitting in the car. He wasn't planning to go anywhere, as the evening was for a couple of beers and stereo installation. ej >On 7/22/05 9:03 PM, in article >SpbEe.2220$Uk3.1271@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Bo Raxo" [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >sitting in the car. He wasn't planning to go anywhere, as the evening was >for a couple of beers and stereo installation. It happens and it's a travesty of justice. It's legislation gone MADD! >ej <snipped> > If I was driving a hundred paying passengers, as part of my job, yeah, a > prison term seems about right. Yes. People who are licensed to operate commercial carriers of any sort must meet a higher standard than the rest of us, AFAIK. Especially when it involves passengers. flick 100785 > I'm saying that a drunk pilot should be punished. But this conviction > was still wrong. How would you like to go to prison for five years [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you were just in the car while it was being towed? Again, these > pilots weren't charged with ATTEMPTED DUI. -Dave This far far far more serious than a driver doing the same thing. They should count themselves fortunate.  SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time >> We aren't speculating when we say they were going to fly the plane drunk. >> They were legally drunk, they were in the cockpit, pushing away from the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >it's still possible that they could have legally flown the airplane. It's >possible. Not likely, but possible. Now go research "reasonable doubt". Is it really reasonable to believe that their BAC was STILL RISING 6 hours after they quit drinking? Not only do I think it's unreasonable, I don't believe it's even possible in people physically fit enough to be able to walk and talk and I know I'm going out on a limb here, but I seriously doubt the pilots had to be wheeled onto the plane in wheelchairs and they were too wasted to be able to say anything. Don't they have to talk to the tower before the plane is even pushed back? >Just thinking that someone is probably guilty is NOT enough to convict. Our >justice system is intentionally biased to allow some criminals to "walk" so [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >car while it was being towed? Again, these pilots weren't charged with >ATTEMPTED DUI. -Dave >> I would suggest that getting FIRED is a pretty good warning, also. I >> know [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Bo Raxo What Bo is getting at is called in legal circles the Pater Noster rule. In 1905 or three or somewere in that time the New York Supreme Court was asked to rule on a question of evidence. Defendant in a divorce action was accused of going to a house of ill repute and using the services there in even though there was no evidence of anything occuring. The court held that going in to a house of ill repute was enough evidence. One justice said that he in good conciouns could not assume that the defendant was using the place to say a pater noster (our father). While the plane was handled correctly up until control was taken away from the pilot there was a great danger of an accident. The intent of the law is to remove and punish a person when their conduct endangers the many such as on a commercial aircraft. > What Bo is getting at is called in legal circles the Pater Noster rule. In > 1905 or three or somewere in that time the New York Supreme Court was asked [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that he in good conciouns could not assume that the defendant was using the > place to say a pater noster (our father). The amazing things I learn amidst the crap on Usenet. Wasn't familiar with this term for the concept, thanks! Hilarious that it was named after the Catholic prayer. > > I understand your point, Dave, but I think that what you're forgetting > > is that those pilots were working, in effect, for the passengers on [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > emotional side says GOOD!, the logical side says ummmm, Hey, Wait a > inute! -Dave My emotional reaction isn't "OMG THEY WERE FLYING DRUNK!" It was, OMG they were prevented from flying drunk. I would see firing as more of a punishment if I weren't aware of how many terminations get overturned under arbitration. Plus, their conduct potentially put the passengers of that airline, and anyone in the flight path of that craft, in danger. Bo is absolutely correct with his drunk driving analogy. Some crimes only require a demonstrable attempt to complete them. Should they have been allowed to take off just so you'd feel better about the sentence? You're crossing the line when you say "go to prison based on speculation." What speculation? When the plane is being pushed away from the gate, it's extremely logical to assume that the pilot and co-pilot are planning on flying it. Are you truly going to argue that they weren't going to fly? Even the defense didn't go that far - they just argued that the crime hadn't been commissioned yet, not that there was no attempt to commit the crime. I have always thought that sentences for attempted crimes should be comparable to sentences for "successful" crimes. It's usually not the will of the perpetrator that keeps the act from being completed. (I have a great story about a former co-worker of mine that involves a dress, a large butcher knife, an attempted home invision, and a hero cat that I could use to entertain and outrage you.) scooter34 > Bo is absolutely correct with his drunk driving analogy. Some crimes > only require a demonstrable attempt to complete them. Should they have > been allowed to take off just so you'd feel better about the sentence? If you were convicted of DUI based on no BAC level at the time you were attempting to drive, how would you feel about that? Now imagine that you were going to prison for five years when NOBODY (not even YOURSELF) knew what your BAC level was at the time of the alleged offense. I think it's a good thing that they weren't allowed to fly. I also think it is a BAD thing that they are going to jail based on speculation that they *might* have been trying to fly drunk. Do the cops assigned to airport duty in Florida not have breathalyzers in their cruisers? I'm somewhat surprised that this case wasn't tossed by the judge due to lack of evidence, BEFORE TRIAL. -Dave > > Bo is absolutely correct with his drunk driving analogy. Some crimes > > only require a demonstrable attempt to complete them. Should they have [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > have breathalyzers in their cruisers? I'm somewhat surprised that this case > wasn't tossed by the judge due to lack of evidence, BEFORE TRIAL. -Dave Dave, Show me ONE case where someone had no BAC at the time they attempted to drive and later (without further ingestion of alcohol) registered above a .08, and I will apologize to you for my complete and total ignorance. My understanding of the metabolism of alcohol is that you ingest it, you metabolize it, your BAC rises. There is fluctuation between breathalyzer and blood readings, which is why there can be differences in the two. The only things I'm aware of that make your BAC rise are metabolism of alcohol already consumed and decomposition. Unless you're claiming those pilots were actually rotting in their seats, I just can't see the scenario you're drawing happening (and decomp doesn't cause a large leap, IIRC.) > Dave, Show me ONE case where someone had no BAC at the time they > attempted to drive and later (without further ingestion of alcohol) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > just can't see the scenario you're drawing happening (and decomp > doesn't cause a large leap, IIRC.) EXACTLY!!! I think it is moronic in the extreme to use a BAC level to determine if someone is legally "drunk" or not. And the BAC levels (as currently set) are themselves extreme, in the sense that a 450 pound man can have a few sips of wine and get in HUGE TROUBLE if he tries to drive home afterwards. But having said that . . . If we are going to use BAC as the only evidence of "drunkenness", so be it. Just remember that BAC can go up AND down over time. So not having BAC level at time of alleged offense is a huge hole in the prosecution's case. While I can agree that the pilots were probably GUILTY, the case against them did not come close to meeting the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Guilty or not, this conviction was just plain wrong, as no evidence existed of any criminal wrong-doing. The prosecution proved that they broke a federal law. For that, they were previously fired, so the efforts of the prosecuting attorneys were rather redundant, in that sense. -Dave On 7/23/05 9:07 PM, in article 42e29562$0$1689$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Dave C." <noway@nohow.not> wrote: > EXACTLY!!! I think it is moronic in the extreme to use a BAC level to > determine if someone is legally "drunk" or not But that is the rule and as shown earlier, they broke the law by meeting more than one criteria. ej >> Bo is absolutely correct with his drunk driving analogy. Some crimes >> only require a demonstrable attempt to complete them. Should they [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > their cruisers? I'm somewhat surprised that this case wasn't tossed > by the judge due to lack of evidence, BEFORE TRIAL. -Dave Politically, that was never going to happen. The government had to make a clear statement. You may argue that they are scapegots or something, but they, and only they, put themselves into the situation. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time > > Bo is absolutely correct with his drunk driving analogy. Some crimes > > only require a demonstrable attempt to complete them. Should they have [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > have breathalyzers in their cruisers? I'm somewhat surprised that this case > wasn't tossed by the judge due to lack of evidence, BEFORE TRIAL. -Dave You keep bringing up the 'no BAC level'. My understanding of the case is that the gate attendant smelled alcohol on them, the plane was returned to the gate, they -were- administered BAC at the terminal. I don't recall the reading but any at all is sufficient legally for this case. There is also a known factor for figuring back, e.g., BAC of .05 4 hours after an accident will equate back to a BAC of over legal 4 hours ago. There was tons of evidence, hard facts, that came out a trial. There was no need for 'guessing', 'speculation' or anything else. It was a cut and dried case from the get go. All the trial was about was defense trying to downgrade the penalty. I loved the judges comment when one of them (the 5 year sentence) one said he felt it was unfair. Judge 'What is unfair, Sir, is a plane load of innocents not getting a sober pilot'. That's not an exact quote but it is close. As for 'not operating a plane'. In control and , yes to get really nitty gritty, they -did- operate it. They had to have at least released the brakes, turned on power and such. To claim they weren't operating it is moronic as was very appropriately brought out by the PA and other witnesses. Harry K On 7/22/05 9:00 PM, in article 42e14267$0$21279$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote: > If you were convicted of DUI based on no BAC level at the time you were > attempting to drive, how would you feel about that? Now imagine that you > were going to prison for five years when NOBODY (not even YOURSELF) knew > what your BAC level was at the time of the alleged offense. Bulls-eye! The fact that not even the pilots themselves knew if they were intoxicated is reason enough for them not to have taken control of the aircraft. You have an obligation to inform your superiors if you are Unable to carry out your duties under the rules. -Not being certain- that you can falls under that rule as well. Also, alcohol processing in a healthy human is known to take place at a given rate. So one can be reasonably certain within a statistical range and given their BAC at testing time what their BAC was at any given point between the time they began drinking until the time they were tested, and further also one can predict time too sobriety. ej On 7/22/05 9:00 PM, in article 42e14267$0$21279$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote: > I think it's a > good thing that they weren't allowed to fly. I also think it is a BAD thing > that they are going to jail based on speculation that they *might* have been > trying to fly drunk. How many times have you seen an airplane even -come- back to the gate after pushback? It happens very seldom, and sometimes at some airports, aircraft are forced to release the gate because someone else is standing on the taxiway waiting for it. In any case the quotations of Federal law in this thread you to be out of line on this issue. ej >On 7/22/05 9:00 PM, in article >42e14267$0$21279$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Ted B." [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >How many times have you seen an airplane even -come- back to the gate after >pushback? I've been on a couple of planes where that happened. They blamed mechanical failure, which is sometimes just an excuse. I suppose the pilots could have suddenly come to their senses and claimed mechanical failure and forced the plane back to the gate. >It happens very seldom, and sometimes at some airports, aircraft are forced >to release the gate because someone else is standing on the taxiway waiting [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >ej > >How many times have you seen an airplane even -come- back to the gate after > >pushback? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I suppose the pilots could have suddenly come to their senses and > claimed mechanical failure and forced the plane back to the gate. Well, if my own experience is typical, it happens in about 10% of flights. But maybe I'm just unlucky? The worst I can remember is one flight where we were pushed back. Then pulled back to the gate. Then for whatever reason the plane just SAT THERE, with no engines running. It sat there for about an hour. Remember this was a tightly enclosed airplane in August with NO A/C. All the passengers were sweating profusely. That was about the time I decided I was going to drive as much as possible. But then I kept getting jobs that required frequent airline travel, so that plan didn't work out very well. But yeah, getting pushed away from the gate and then returning does happen quite frequently. -Dave "> Well, if my own experience is typical, it happens in about 10% of flights. > But maybe I'm just unlucky? The worst I can remember is one flight where > we [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > very well. But yeah, getting pushed away from the gate and then returning > does happen quite frequently. -Dave What airline and aircraft type were you on? I no of NONE of the commercial aircraft that don't have a/c. Snow... > What airline and aircraft type were you on? I no of NONE of the commercial > aircraft that don't have a/c. > > Snow... Oh they all have A/C. Problem is, engine has to be running. Or I believe there is a way to power it from the ground, also. I've been on several flights where (on the ground) there was NO A/C. -Dave > > What airline and aircraft type were you on? I no of NONE of the > commercial [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Oh they all have A/C. Problem is, engine has to be running. Or I believe > there is a way to power it from the ground, also. The so-called 'ground cart'. > I've been on several > flights where (on the ground) there was NO A/C. -Dave I'm trying to recall where the a/c was active before the engines were lit and failing fast. I can even recall a train journey ( on the 'Flying Scotsman' - the 10:00 departure for Edinburgh ) where we were sweltering in the carriage in Kings Cross Station. As soon as we got moving the air chilled nicely. Its simply because a/c needs some power to work it. Graham On 7/24/05 3:45 AM, in article 42E2F2B1.43A331BD@hotmail.com, "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: > I'm trying to recall where the a/c was active before the engines were lit and > failing fast. The AC, if needed, is on and powered by the APU until the engines are started and the electrical bus is changed. ej On 7/24/05 3:09 AM, in article 42e2ea50$0$8030$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Dave C." <noway@nohow.not> wrote: > Oh they all have A/C. Problem is, engine has to be running. Or I believe > there is a way to power it from the ground, also. I've been on several > flights where (on the ground) there was NO A/C. -Dave They all have what is called an APU or auxiliary power unit which is a small jet engine which turns a generator to provide power. If they are having problems with the electrical busses, it is possible that no power was available on board, and none could be connected externally because the bus carrying the electricity is out of order. In these cases the plane should be off-loaded. ej > On 7/24/05 3:09 AM, in article > 42e2ea50$0$8030$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Dave C." [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > They all have what is called an APU or auxiliary power unit which is a > small jet engine which turns a generator to provide power. Why do they use jet engines for the APU? SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time > > On 7/24/05 3:09 AM, in article > > 42e2ea50$0$8030$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Dave C." [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Why do they use jet engines for the APU? Actually, strictly speaking, they're small gas turbines. I expect they use them since they run on the same fuel as the main engines. Graham >> > On 7/24/05 3:09 AM, in article >> > 42e2ea50$0$8030$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Dave C." [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Actually, strictly speaking, they're small gas turbines. That's what I thought. They are interested in RPMs, not thrust. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time On 7/25/05 4:24 AM, in article 42E44D4D.931F0440@hotmail.com, "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> On 7/24/05 3:09 AM, in article >>> 42e2ea50$0$8030$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Dave C." [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Graham Bingo. ej >"> Well, if my own experience is typical, it happens in about 10% of >flights. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >What airline and aircraft type were you on? I no of NONE of the commercial >aircraft that don't have a/c. It really sucks when I have to share my flight with f.cking morons like you. >Snow... >>"> Well, if my own experience is typical, it happens in about 10% of >>flights. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > It really sucks when I have to share my flight with f.cking morons > like you. I'm sure they feel the same way about you. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time On 7/24/05 12:55 AM, in article zXzEe.12669$je2.1312223@news20.bellglobal.com, "Snow" <snowbal@sympatico.ca> wrote: > What airline and aircraft type were you on? I no of NONE of the commercial > aircraft that don't have a/c. He said it wasn't turned on. From his description it sounds as if there was a bleed air or a generator problem. ej bleed air problem they would have used a ground cart to supply air, if it was a generator problem the bleed would still work with ground power connected (all until the #1 engine is started). If the systems could not be used in one of these two ways the plane would have been grounded. Snow... Guess DJ is still trying to get answers for this one???? Snow... > bleed air problem they would have used a ground cart to supply air, if it > was a generator problem the bleed would still work with ground power [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Snow... On 7/25/05 9:00 PM, in article YHaFe.1368$q23.326436@news20.bellglobal.com, > Guess DJ is still trying to get answers for this one???? It is EJ, and there was no question. ej On 7/22/05 9:00 PM, in article 42e14267$0$21279$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote: > Do the cops assigned to airport duty in Florida not > have breathalyzers in their cruisers? I'm somewhat surprised that this case > wasn't tossed by the judge due to lack of evidence, BEFORE TRIAL. -Dave They obviously did not have lack of evidence. In fact, according to the federal law quoted in this thread, they committed the offenses under multiple criteria. And the testimony of the gate agents about smelling booze and seeing intoxicated behavior? And it is likely that the breathalyzers owned by the cops guarding the airport, if indeed they are Miami-Dade police, are assigned to traffic police. ej On 7/22/05 8:40 PM, in article 1122057617.271922.310110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "scooter34" <momofpeanutLiz@netscape.net> wrote: > Bo is absolutely correct with his drunk driving analogy. Some crimes > only require a demonstrable attempt to complete them. Should they have > been allowed to take off just so you'd feel better about the sentence? Interestingly enough, at least at the airline for which my father and brother fly, the drug tests -are- made -after- the flight. ej On 7/22/05 8:40 PM, in article 1122057617.271922.310110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "scooter34" <momofpeanutLiz@netscape.net> wrote: > (I > have a great story about a former co-worker of mine that involves a > dress, a large butcher knife, an attempted home invision, and a hero > cat that I could use to entertain and outrage you.) > > scooter34 Poor kitty! ej On 7/22/05 8:00 PM, in article 42e13453$0$48592$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote: > They were rightfully punished by losing > their jobs. They broke a rule. No, they broke rules and laws. The rule violations are rightly punished by termination. But it is still a -crime- under the law what they did. And they have to be punished for that as well. There is no double jeopardy here, and no excessive punishment. They knew it was both illegal and against the company rules as well as pilot ethics. ej On 7/22/05 8:00 PM, in article 42e13453$0$48592$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote: > All else is speculation No. They broke a law. If you and I break a law which coincidentally causes us to lose our employment, say by stealing from the employer, do you think that simple job loss should erase the crime to the point where the law is simply ignored? ej On 7/22/05 8:00 PM, in article 42e13453$0$48592$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote: > I know the emotional reaction is "OMIGOD THEY WERE FLYING DRUNK! LOCK THEM > UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY!!!" Yes, they were, and they were willing to endanger hundreds if not thousands of people by operating a vehicle weighing 150,000 pounds in an an unsatisfactory state of mental awareness. Sounds like a crime worth punishing to me. Should they be able to go to another carrier and get a job? ej On 7/22/05 8:00 PM, in article 42e13453$0$48592$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote: > Those aren't the facts of the case, though. > All that was proven is that they broke a rule. A rule for which they were > FIRED, because they broke the rule. No, they broke both a rule and a law. Probably more than 1 law, as there is likely a state and a federal crime that was committed. The broke the rule and were fired. They broke the law and were jailed. What is so hard for you to accept here. ej On 7/22/05 8:00 PM, in article 42e13453$0$48592$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote: > While I could somewhat agree that someone flying drunk deserves prison time, > I think it's sad when someone goes to prison based on mere speculation Did they blow the readings or not? From Channel 4 in Miami's website: "The pilots had been at the bar up until about six hours before their departure time; federal rules say pilots cannot drink in the eight hours before a flight. Police stepped in after screeners smelled alcohol on their breath. Tested hours later, their blood-alcohol levels were above Florida's 0.08 percent limit for drunken driving, which includes aircraft, according to testimony. Their levels were probably much higher when they were in the cockpit, the experts said. Testimony showed that Cloyd and Hughes ran up a $122 tab and drank seven 34-ounce glasses and seven 16-ounce glasses of beer over six hours at the bar. At dinner before that, they had wine and Cloyd drank a martini, prosecutors said." $122 bar tab? 61 dollars a piece? At the bar until six hors before departure? I'll bet they didn't get much sleep, either. Notice Florida's drink drive law includes aircraft. Notice that at test time, hours after arrest in the cockpit they were above .08. Yer defending the indefensible here. ej > While I agree that 5 years may seem harsh, I would suggest that it's > an excellent warning to anyone considering violating the fly rules and > getting in the cockpit of a piece of machinery that could kill over > 100 people. Exactly. They could string them up by their balls for 5 years and it wouldn't be too much penalty. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time On 7/22/05 7:04 PM, in article 42e12739$0$28192$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote: > Why do you believe that the passengers were in danger? It is very difficult under the best of circumstances to fly a commercial aircraft, even under the best of conditions. But if you add drunkenness to traffic and weather,and jet lag with lack of proper sleep, you have pilots unfit to deal with an emergency, incident or accident, and they may even cause one, too. That is how the passengers were in danger. Can I fly you around drunk? Or would you rather have a sober pilot? ej On 7/22/05 7:04 PM, in article 42e12739$0$28192$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote: > But there aren't enough facts known to make that > determination. So what makes you think the passengers were in danger? > You're just guessing, aren't you? Given they were convicted, at least 12 jurors, a judge and a prosecutor had enough facts. They were in danger because alcohol laden pilots cannot handle emergencies correctly. The plane will actually fly to and land itself at its destination, and a tipsy person could likely push the autopilot buttons in sequence correctly to make this happen, but what happens if something goes wrong? ej > Given they were convicted, at least 12 jurors, a judge and a prosecutor had > enough facts. Tell that to all the prisoners on death row who were later proved totally innocent by DNA evidence pointing to another person who CONFESSED to the crime. A verdict can be wrong. If you don't believe that, review the OJ Simpson and Louise Woodward trials. A guilty verdict does not prove that a crime was committed. Nor does a "not guilty" verdict necessarily mean that no crime was committed. -Dave > > Given they were convicted, at least 12 jurors, a judge and a prosecutor > had [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > crime was committed. Nor does a "not guilty" verdict necessarily mean that > no crime was committed. -Dave I'm inclined to mention those mothers ( well mainly mothers ) in the UK who were found guilty of killing their babies by shaking them. The medical 'evidence' has now been largely discredited and quite substantial numbers of those formerly convicted are being released from prison. A couple of paediatric consultants have come in for heavy criticism over the whole affair and some sanctions have been applied but I don't see how that can ever compare to the distress to their 'victims' whose families have been torn apart. In the USA would a mother found guilty of killing her child likely be executed ? And this was all done in good faith at the time. Graham > I'm inclined to mention those mothers ( well mainly mothers ) in the UK who > were found guilty of killing their babies by shaking them. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Graham Depending on the circumstances of the crime, HELL YES a mother could be EXECUTED in the USA for killing her child. But then, not all states have the death penalty. Still, in states with the death penalty, a conviction for first degree murder can carry the death penalty, regardless of the relationship of the perp to the victim(s). I doubt very much you'd see it in a "shaken baby" case, though. More likely, if a mother shook a baby and the baby later died, it would probably lead to a conviction on manslaughter charges, and some time in prison. Still, it is scary as Hell to read about all the false convictions in the UK for shaken baby. I know we have just as many false convictions in the U.S. for shaken baby syndrome. (probably a lot more) The Louise Woodward case was interesting (on this topic) as it was a UK woman wrongfully convicted of causing the death of a baby in Massachusetts. The injuries that led to the baby's death in that case could have been a result of physical abuse of some sort. But they were more likely caused by an accidental fall of a few feet. The only thing that was proven (by the defense witnesses, and ironically stipulated by a prosecution witness on rebuttal) is that the fatal injury was weeks old before it was discovered. Now, nobody knows exactly what happened to the poor child who died in the Louise Woodward case. The only thing known for certain is that IF the child was abused, it may or may not have been Louise Woodward who abused him, as there was no way to know who (if anybody) was with the child at the exact moment that the skull fracture (probably from an accidental fall) happened. But relating this back to your comments . . . If the evidence was stronger, and the crime was pre-planned, and Massachusetts had a death penalty at the time, this woman (Woodward) from the UK might have been facing the death penalty in the USA for a shaken baby conviction. Yikes. -Dave On 7/22/05 7:04 PM, in article 42e12739$0$28192$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote: > The only fact known in this case is that the pilots violated federal rules > by drinking within 8 hours of when they were supposed to fly. For that, > they were fired. Seems reasonable. Jail also? Yes, firing is a company punishment. The law had also been broken, and a punishment for that is jail time. ej You don't know much about flying aircraft nor the systems that control them either do you???? Certain planes and majority of all North American airports have systems that allow the planes to take-off, fly and land themselves. Some even have the equipment to allow the plane to taxi. Not to mention, most engine starts are a single push button operation, and once the NAV computers have aligned (takes about 40 seconds) its push in way points (or pre-loaded FMS flight database) and the plane will do the rest. As for taxiing, its a piece of piss easier then driving a car. Snow... >> Even if the BAC at arrest time was over .08, >> that doesn't necessarily mean that the pilots were incapable of safely [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > E.P. > You don't know much about flying aircraft nor the systems that control them > either do you???? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > database) and the plane will do the rest. As for taxiing, its a piece of > piss easier then driving a car. HAHAHA. Listen to this loonybird defend drunk pilots!!!! > > You don't know much about flying aircraft nor the systems that control them > > either do you???? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > HAHAHA. Listen to this loonybird defend drunk pilots!!!! That's almost as retarded as your defense of drunk senators and pot-head ex-presidents. Hey Loon your wrong AGAIN !!!! I never once defended the pilots... I was defending the statements made as to whether the pilots could still fly the plane, which YES they could have, as the plane will fly by itself. Snow... >> You don't know much about flying aircraft nor the systems that control >> them [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > HAHAHA. Listen to this loonybird defend drunk pilots!!!! On 7/23/05 12:53 AM, in article lPeEe.7203$Qi4.921455@news20.bellglobal.com, > Hey Loon your wrong AGAIN !!!! I never once defended the pilots... I was > defending the statements made as to whether the pilots could still fly the > plane, which YES they could have, as the plane will fly by itself. But could they handle an emergency, which is what they are there for. And even one operating a computer drunk is prone to error. On 7/22/05 7:52 PM, in article 1122054739.246516.103020@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote: >> You don't know much about flying aircraft nor the systems that control them >> either do you???? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > HAHAHA. Listen to this loonybird defend drunk pilots!!!! This is what I can't understand, unless this guy is a drinker and a pilot. ej > You don't know much about flying aircraft nor the systems that control them > either do you???? > > Certain planes and majority of all North American airports have systems that > allow the planes to take-off, fly and land themselves. But the *don't* take off and land themselves. That's done just as much "by hand" as it has been since Wilbur and Orville did their thing at Kitty Hawk. The systems by which this is done might become automated to a degree, but the decision-makers still sit at the very front of the aircraft. OK, since you want to be contrary, name the airlines and aircraft that use no pilot input from ramp to ramp. E.P. >> You don't know much about flying aircraft nor the systems that control them >> either do you???? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >E.P. Actually, the aircraft in question - the Airbus A-318/319/320/321 series can takeoff and land without input from the pilot. FAA Regulations, however, do not permit that kind of operation, they require a pilot in control during these stages of the flight. This particular series of aircraft was controversial when it was introduced due to design concept of automation taking over from human control. In order to be certified in the United States, Airbus modified several systems to allow greater pilot control of the plane. This became of particular interest after the 1988 crash of an Air France A-320 at Habsheim, France during an airshow. Investigation showed that the aircraft's automated systems were commanding the plane to land during a low pass over the airshow crowd, while the pilot was fighting the computer for control. The end result is that the plane crashed into the forest just beyond the runway, killing three people aboard the jet. The automation is all well and good in certain aspects, but you still need alert persons to monitor the automated functions and take control when necessary. So, IMO, violating the 8-hour "Bottle to Throttle" rule is inexcusable. That said, I don't think jail time does any good in this situation. The careers of these pilots are over - sending them to jail only means taxpayers have to pay for their housing. These guys have known little in their working life besides flying aircraft, and they aren't going to be able to do it ever again, at least not commercially. They have a future of being Wal-Mart greeters of learning how to say "You want fries with that?" For a pilot, having your wings clipped is worse than any prison term. Being a pilot is not just a job - it's something that gets in your blood, your very nature. You take the sky away from a pilot and you have one of the most humbled people around. > That said, I don't think jail time > does any good in this situation. The careers of these pilots are over > - sending them to jail only means taxpayers have to pay for their > housing. I'm betting the passengers on that plane would disagree. >These guys have known little in their working life besides > flying aircraft, and they aren't going to be able to do it ever again, > at least not commercially. Nonsense. They'll move to another country. Probably within a few years of their being released from prison they will be either commercial pilots or flight instructors in some corner of the world. Bo Raxo >> That said, I don't think jail time >> does any good in this situation. The careers of these pilots are over >> - sending them to jail only means taxpayers have to pay for their >> housing. > >I'm betting the passengers on that plane would disagree. Yeah, well, we're all about vengance and punitiveness in this nation, aren't we? These two idiots aren't going to to "learn" anything in jail, and they are out of their careers. Society is not benefitting by locking them up. >>These guys have known little in their working life besides >> flying aircraft, and they aren't going to be able to do it ever again, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >their being released from prison they will be either commercial pilots or >flight instructors in some corner of the world. They can apply for reinstatement, but something this high-profile isn't likely to get them their tickets back. These guys will never get their careers back - if they are lucky, they may end up as freight dogs in South America. I don't think you really understand the airline industry and how difficult it is to get back in once you've f.cked up. If the FAA pulls your ticket, you're pretty much screwed with everyone who isn't a half-assed banana-hauler operating in a country that doesn't give a sh.t. And a lot of these operations aren't permitted landing rights in the U.S. because drunk pilots are the least of the concerns - planes that fall apart are. These guys are gone - they will never enjoy the income and benefits they once had and sacrificed with a night of partying. On 7/22/05 10:48 PM, in article obm2e19re3cn6clj9afdplgpgupjnue2f8@4ax.com, > would disagree. > > Yeah, well, we're all about vengance and punitiveness in this > nation, aren't we? These two idiots aren't going to to "learn" > anything in jail, and they are out of their careers. Society is not > benefitting by locking them up. Correct. They are being punished for their crimes. ej > So, IMO, violating the 8-hour "Bottle to > Throttle" rule is inexcusable. That said, I don't think jail time > does any good in this situation. It sends a clear message to any other pilots contemplating drinking before a flight a very clear message - not only will you lose your job, you will lose your freedom. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time >> So, IMO, violating the 8-hour "Bottle to >> Throttle" rule is inexcusable. That said, I don't think jail time [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >a flight a very clear message - not only will you lose your job, you will >lose your freedom. Like the death penalty has stopped murder? >>It sends a clear message to any other pilots contemplating drinking before >>a flight a very clear message - not only will you lose your job, you will >>lose your freedom. > >Like the death penalty has stopped murder? Anecdotal data disclaimer applies: I know several, maybe many, that have taken the risk of a DUI more seriously since the company I work for has said that it's grounds for dismissal, or at the very least, a downgrade into a non-driving job. Prior to that the potential fine/jail time alone didn't have the same effect. Just where is the cutoff between several and many? L. >>> So, IMO, violating the 8-hour "Bottle to >>> Throttle" rule is inexcusable. That said, I don't think jail time [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Like the death penalty has stopped murder? At least the person murdering won't do it again. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time >>>> So, IMO, violating the 8-hour "Bottle to >>>> Throttle" rule is inexcusable. That said, I don't think jail time [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >At least the person murdering won't do it again. Great arguement, and I'm sure you are aware that if you killed every person on the planet, there would be no crime? The fact is the death penalty is not serving as the deterrent its advocates claim it is, and it actually costs more to put someone to death than it does to just let them rot in prison. >>>>> So, IMO, violating the 8-hour "Bottle to >>>>> Throttle" rule is inexcusable. That said, I don't think jail time [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > it actually costs more to put someone to death than it does to just > let them rot in prison. We aren't discussing the death penalty, loon, we are talking about the prison time deserved by those pilots. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time >>>>>> So, IMO, violating the 8-hour "Bottle to >>>>>> Throttle" rule is inexcusable. That said, I don't think jail [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >We aren't discussing the death penalty, loon, we are talking about the >prison time deserved by those pilots. Um, by the nature of your first reply, guess what? We're discussing the death penalty. >>>>>>> So, IMO, violating the 8-hour "Bottle to >>>>>>> Throttle" rule is inexcusable. That said, I don't think jail [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Um, by the nature of your first reply, guess what? We're discussing > the death penalty. No, this was brought up by your comment "Like the death penalty has stopped murder?" SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time >>>>>>>The Shadow Knows... <i.am.me.as.you.are.he@the_walrus.com> wrote >in [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >No, this was brought up by your comment "Like the death penalty has >stopped murder?" Um, but did I move your hand on the mouse and made you click on "reply"? Why, no, I didn't...how about that? You made it a discussion by replying. See, when I throw something out and nobody replies, it's just something I threw out. When someone replies, then it becomes a discussion. >>>>>>>>The Shadow Knows... <i.am.me.as.you.are.he@the_walrus.com> wrote >>in [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > replies, it's just something I threw out. When someone replies, then > it becomes a discussion. You are a kook. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time >>>>>>>The Shadow Knows... <i.am.me.as.you.are.he@the_walrus.com> wrote >in [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > >You are a kook. Name-calling - that's a great way to bow out of any discussion, isn't it? >>>>>>>>The Shadow Knows... <i.am.me.as.you.are.he@the_walrus.com> wrote >>in [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Name-calling - that's a great way to bow out of any discussion, > isn't it? It is an observation, loon, nothing more. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time >>>>>>>The Shadow Knows... <i.am.me.as.you.are.he@the_walrus.com> wrote >in [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > >It is an observation, loon, nothing more. Yep, thank you for proving my point. Can't discuss the issue, only throw names out. Oh well, no worries - have a nice day and I'll talk to you later, if I'm that unlucky. On 7/24/05 6:37 AM, in article Xns969CDBEA0C470retsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6, "Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Name-calling - that's a great way to bow out of any discussion, >> isn't it? > > It is an observation, loon, nothing more. No,dave, it is SOP for you when someone dares to disagree with you. You are addicted to your own arrogance. Seek help. ej Eric Johnson <erj66@xs4all.nl> wrote in news:BF091EE3.8D774%erj66 @xs4all.nl: > On 7/24/05 6:37 AM, in article > Xns969CDBEA0C470retsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6, "Dave Lister" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You are addicted to your own arrogance. No, junkie, it is an observation of unbalance in your posts. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time > in >>>>>>>news:ur43e11edqlp9kfomo2ae6lc5b8c4i2kjn@4ax.com: [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > It is an observation, loon, nothing more. Actually, it's a hallucination, nothing more. What the guy said was perfectly reasonable.. You'll have to excuse Lister. The mad cow is setting in. "shrikeback" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote in news:s8OdnRg5qoR3z37fRVn- 2Q@comcast.com: >> in >>>>>>>>news:ur43e11edqlp9kfomo2ae6lc5b8c4i2kjn@4ax.com: [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > Actually, it's a hallucination, nothing more. What the guy > said was perfectly reasonable.. The good dog Shithead, in an attempt to rack up some cheap points, thinks that the person actually trying to shift the topic onto the death penalty didn't in fact do so. > You'll have to excuse Lister. The mad cow is setting in. The good dog Shithead is now trying to leg hump Snow. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time >o, this was brought up by your comment "Like the death penalty has >stopped murder?" It certainly hasn't stopped your idiocy. >>o, this was brought up by your comment "Like the death penalty has >>stopped murder?" > > It certainly hasn't stopped your idiocy. Poor Loser Sternn, still feeling bad he got whipped so badly. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time >>>o, this was brought up by your comment "Like the death penalty has >>>stopped murder?" >> >> It certainly hasn't stopped your idiocy. > >Poor Loser Sternn, still feeling bad he got whipped so badly. Keep your fantasies to yourself. > Great arguement, and I'm sure you are aware that if you killed every >person on the planet, there would be no crime? I think you may be onto something there. I'll volunteer to be the last guy and commit suicide after everyone else is gone, 'kay? >> Great arguement, and I'm sure you are aware that if you killed every >>person on the planet, there would be no crime? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'll volunteer to be the last guy and commit suicide after everyone > else is gone, 'kay? You will be the first to go, as parents seeking retroactive abortions will be allowed to have them. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time On 7/22/05 10:49 PM, in article gtm2e1pdh0map9bj1p2laatec2pqv5bpvu@4ax.com, >>> So, IMO, violating the 8-hour "Bottle to >>> Throttle" rule is inexcusable. That said, I don't think jail time [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Like the death penalty has stopped murder? No, but the murderer is punished and won't do it again. You seem to be arguing the sentence is too harsh. ej >On 7/22/05 10:49 PM, in article gtm2e1pdh0map9bj1p2laatec2pqv5bpvu@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >You seem to be arguing the sentence is too harsh. Not really, just that it serves no good to society. We have a fixation on "punishing" people that really isn't very rational. We hold on to the idea that being harsh on criminals will serve as a deterrent to crime, yet we enjoy the highest crime rate of Western nations as well as having more of our population, percentage-wise, incarcertated than any nation in the world. Now stop and think about that - we're locking up people and "punishing" them at a rate no other nation does, yet we still have a high crime rate. Is it because we're just not locking enough people up, or maybe because we're addressing the symptom and not the problem? These pilots likely have a problem with alcohol abuse - do you honestly think that jail time is going to change that? Maybe - just maybe - they will get into a prison AA program or something, but I'm not betting on it. They will get out and they will still have the problem. One of these days, one of them might get loaded and decide to drive home and runs over your kid because he's drunk. So, let's throw him back in jail - right? How about getting him on a path to recovery from the first incident? Don't you think we all benefit when someone learns there is life away from the bottle - more so than just being punitive and locking someone up for a while, only to let them come away from their sentence just as bad, if not worse, than the day they went in? I say strip them of their tickets, and make them seek help for their problem - we're not gaining anything by having them sit in a cell at taxpayer expense. we might gain something by forcing them to realize they have a problem and once sober, they can become productive members of society. > Not really, just that it serves no good to society. We have a > fixation on "punishing" people that really isn't very rational. Part of it is the belief that incarceration will give a person time to reflect on his or her mistakes and discover the error of their ways. Hence the name "Department of Corrections" >We > hold on to the idea that being harsh on criminals will serve as a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > just not locking enough people up, or maybe because we're addressing > the symptom and not the problem? It's because we have made it easy to get your hands on a very cheap gun. Even for those with prior felonies. That, and long sentences for drug offenses. There's the cause of your incarceration rates. We are addressing neither the symptom nor the problem, what we are doing is creating an incarceration system that has a constituency - all those rural areas that benefit from the payroll and population numbers that a prison brings to the county. >These pilots likely have a problem > with alcohol abuse - do you honestly think that jail time is going to > change that? Well, they'll be off the sauce for the next few years. Might break their addiction cycle. I've seen people come out of prison with whole new problems they never had when they went in, ones that dwarf the issues that put them there in the first place. :[ That's a problem with how we run state prisons, not inherent to the concept of incarceration. Bo Raxo >> Not really, just that it serves no good to society. We have a >> fixation on "punishing" people that really isn't very rational. > >Part of it is the belief that incarceration will give a person time to >reflect on his or her mistakes and discover the error of their ways. Hence >the name "Department of Corrections" And how many more decades will pass before we realize that isn't the case? This idea has been used since the early 19th Century, when the "Pennsylvania System" was developed and we're still doing the same basic thing with little or no success. >>We >> hold on to the idea that being harsh on criminals will serve as a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >It's because we have made it easy to get your hands on a very cheap gun. >Even for those with prior felonies. I don't disagree with you on that, but I don't think that is the sole reason, as a lot of crime doesn't involve guns. >That, and long sentences for drug offenses. There's the cause of your >incarceration rates. We are addressing neither the symptom nor the problem, >what we are doing is creating an incarceration system that has a >constituency - all those rural areas that benefit from the payroll and >population numbers that a prison brings to the county. Thank you! Those are my thoughts exactly regarding the private prison system - you have to have people to lock up to keep those bucks rolling in... You don't have to tell me about that insanity, I live in a state that is not only one of the worst at locking up its citizens, but actively courts those private prisons. The prison industry is one of Oklahoma's biggest cash cows outside of the two major cities, and even in the second-largest county in the state, Tulsa County, it's jail is operated by CCA, the nation's largest private prison operator. >>These pilots likely have a problem >> with alcohol abuse - do you honestly think that jail time is going to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >there in the first place. :[ That's a problem with how we run state >prisons, not inherent to the concept of incarceration. Indeed - I've met a lot of recovering addicts who've been to prison that said getting a fix was far easier inside that outside. doubt, however, that these guys will change by being in prison. Part of that is the mentality - next to physicians, pilots are the worst about having a "god complex" and thus the hardest to get to admit they have a problem. And, of course, that is the first step to recovery - acknowledging you have a problem. It took my father (an ER physician) more than 30 years to admit he was an alcoholic - he finally had to get so sick and face the possibility of losing his family and career before he admitted to having a problem. I'll let you in on something about myself that I rarely talk about - it was an airport police officer who knew from his own experiences with his family that jail would not sober a person up. About a decade ago, I was found passed out in my car at the airport that I worked at (I won't name it, but it wasn't OKC) - the officer had jursidiction over the city cops who wanted to take me in for DUI. Because he gave me that "get out of jail free" card, I began to turn my life around. Had I gone to jail, I probably wouldn't have done anything - sobered up in the drunk tank and likely have gone right back out and drank some more. But this guy saved me - I went home to Oklahoma City for a few days, and really started getting myself together - I saw that my future was a wreck if I didn't. Maybe knowing that, you and others can understand why I don't think jail time for these pilots really serves any good. I could be wrong - maybe they will get their sh.t together on the inside, we'll see, On 7/24/05 2:23 AM, in article hfm5e19fo3hdlh69pb3g3tgi7fmq2s6qp8@4ax.com, > I > don't think jail time for these pilots really serves any good. I > could be wrong - maybe they will get their sh.t together on the > inside, we'll see, What ought to happen to them? They did endanger hundreds of people. ej >On 7/24/05 2:23 AM, in article hfm5e19fo3hdlh69pb3g3tgi7fmq2s6qp8@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >They did endanger hundreds of people. They never get to fly again, that's for sure - except as a passenger. As I said before, that's the worst things you can do to a pilot, take away the sky. Secondly, I'd sentence them to some kind of treatment facility so they can get help with their alcoholism. Leave them there until a Judge decides they are the road to recovery. Again, my point is that jail time doesn't do anyone any good. Perhaps they will seek out help for their problem in jail - that help is certainly there. But if they don't, then they come out just as messed-up as when they went in and probably will be carying more resentments that will lead them to go out and drink even more - the last person an alcoholic will blame for their troubles is themselves, and it's common to use resentments as an excuse to drink. Sentencing them to a treatment program has a better chance that they will not further endanger anyone else than jail does. On 7/24/05 5:47 PM, in article lid7e1tf2g989q306ani0epvtjjvpgo5pr@4ax.com, >> What ought to happen to them? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > treatment facility so they can get help with their alcoholism. Leave > them there until a Judge decides they are the road to recovery. I am OK with that so long as the comfort level isn't too high and the judge takes claims of on the road to recovery with extreme prejudice. ej > On 7/24/05 5:47 PM, in article lid7e1tf2g989q306ani0epvtjjvpgo5pr@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I am OK with that so long as the comfort level isn't too high and the judge > takes claims of on the road to recovery with extreme prejudice. Count me in on this route too. It makes far more sense than simply punitive measures. Graham >On 7/24/05 5:47 PM, in article lid7e1tf2g989q306ani0epvtjjvpgo5pr@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I am OK with that so long as the comfort level isn't too high and the judge >takes claims of on the road to recovery with extreme prejudice. Same here. Anyone can "talk the talk" but don't "walk the walk"... >>On 7/24/05 2:23 AM, in article hfm5e19fo3hdlh69pb3g3tgi7fmq2s6qp8@4ax.com, >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >passenger. As I said before, that's the worst things you can do to a >pilot, take away the sky. And make them work as Wal-Mart greeters? Just throw away all their skills? > Secondly, I'd sentence them to some kind of >treatment facility so they can get help with their alcoholism. Leave >them there until a Judge decides they are the road to recovery. Make judges into doctors? >Again, my point is that jail time doesn't do anyone any good. It could do some good. >Perhaps >they will seek out help for their problem in jail - that help is >certainly there. But if they don't, then it's their own damn fault. >then they come out just as >messed-up as when they went in and probably will be carying more >resentments that will lead them to go out and drink even more As long as they're not flying, they can drink themselves to death for all I care. > - the >last person an alcoholic will blame for their troubles is themselves, Not true in all cases. >and it's common to use resentments as an excuse to drink. Sentencing >them to a treatment program has a better chance that they will not >further endanger anyone else than jail does. On 7/23/05 5:46 PM, in article jso4e1hrlhauni0nktohpl624g8bl1vcav@4ax.com, > Not really, just that it serves no good to society. We have a > fixation on "punishing" people that really isn't very rational. Except that this is effective in jacking the perceived risk up so high that pilots would not dare. It may not deter murderers, but it prison does speak loudly to pilots with careers and families. ej >On 7/23/05 5:46 PM, in article jso4e1hrlhauni0nktohpl624g8bl1vcav@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >It may not deter murderers, but it prison does speak loudly to pilots with >careers and families. How much experience have you had dealing with the mindset of an alcoholic? If you're addicted, you tend to think you're a deity and will never get caught - the threat of jail never enters your mind. Trust me, I've been down that ugly road and I hope neither you nor anyone you love ever ends up on it. The deterrent effect of jail time is forgotten once you get enough booze in your system - that's part of the problem. You and I, as sober individuals, can look at the penalties and say we're not going there - but given enough "liquid courage" - it's amazing how some of the dumbest ideas on the planet become rational... >>On 7/23/05 5:46 PM, in article >>jso4e1hrlhauni0nktohpl624g8bl1vcav@4ax.com, "The Shadow Knows..." [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > courage" - it's amazing how some of the dumbest ideas on the planet > become rational... I am a recovering addict. I don't think that the sentence is too harsh, nor do I think it lacks deterent value. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time >>>On 7/23/05 5:46 PM, in article >>>jso4e1hrlhauni0nktohpl624g8bl1vcav@4ax.com, "The Shadow Knows..." [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >I am a recovering addict. I don't think that the sentence is too harsh, nor >do I think it lacks deterent value. So we disagree, not like that's something unusual or even an issue. I have stated why I take the stance I have, I haven't seen much for you or Mr. Johnson that shows why you feel the way you do, beyond the implied "That'll teach 'em!" I'm not steadfast in my opinion, if you can convince me otherwise, please try. BS like the death penalty works because the murderer is dead is not contributing - wouldn't we all be better served by looking at the causes of crime rather than focusing on punishing it? I'm not saying that we shouldn't punish it, I'm saying we should be focusing more of stopping it from happening in the first place. This nation spends far more money in "punishing" crime than it does preventing it. On 7/24/05 6:39 AM, in article 5g66e1pr8d1hduros9rnshju68fbqm31n7@4ax.com, > BS like the death penalty > works because the murderer is dead is not contributing - wouldn't we > all be better served by looking at the causes of crime rather than > focusing on punishing it? Fine. What is the cause of murder? This reeks of excuse making. I murdered someone, but now I claim I am sick. Should this get me off the hook? ej >On 7/24/05 6:39 AM, in article 5g66e1pr8d1hduros9rnshju68fbqm31n7@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Should this get me off the hook? The causes of murder are many. Substance abuse is one - someone gets drunk and gets into a bar fight that gets out of hand, for example. Addressing the substance abuse before it got to that point might have prevented the murder. Domestic violence, which is also often fueled by substance abuse, can be addressed before it gets to a fatal point. You do have some pure psychopaths, such as Dennis Rader, that you're likely not going to be able to stop - although I have questions about his religious background and sexual repression that I think led to his ultimate sexual fantasies, which involved murder. You're misreading what I am saying, I am not justifying murder nor did I ever say that addiction or anything else is an excuse. I said that we should be looking at the things that cause crime in order to prevent it. Substance abuse is a major one. Sexual repression is another - I have yet to see a case of someone like Dennis Rader (the confessed BTK Strangler - I forget, you're not posting from a.t-c, so you may not know the name) where some level of sexual repression does not exist. Child abuse is another factor - I have yet to see a case of a child molester that was not abused in some fashion as a child. Getting these people help before they harm is a noble goal. I'm not so naive as to think it will stop all crime, but I think focusing our energies on stopping crime before it happens serves us all better than this myth that if we just get "tough" that will deter it. You seem to think that I am making excuses. The court decided in the case of these pilots that they go to jail. I don't agree that anyone benefits from that, but at the same time, I'm not going to fight the decision. A jury of their peers spoke and what is done is done. I will, however, voice my opinion on the matter and how I also feel that this was a crime that could have been prevented. Perhaps tightening things up - recall that a TSA screener thought she smelled alcohol on the pilots as they came through the checkpoint, but said she had no authority to detain them. In reality, they do have that authority, unless the law has changed. I used to be a checkpoint supervisor in the pre-TSA days, we had the right to prevent *anyone* from proceeding beyond the checkpoint if we felt they served as a danger to someone else, and intoxication was one of the reasons. IIRC, the Captain got indignant with the supervisor at the checkpoint - unless this has changed, the supervisor had every right to refuse passage through the checkpoint and to contact authorities to address the situation. Was this not made clear to TSA personnel that if they felt the flight crew posed a poential danger because they were intoxicated, they were within their boundaries to hold them at the gate until police could address the situation? If that law has changed, then I think it's a bad thing. I personally have done it - not to a pilot, someone meeting a flight. The guy was pretty balsted, in fact, I watched him come out of the bar, which was just above the checkpoint. I told my second to call "LEO" - code word for the police (Law Enforcement Officer) and I confronted him. I told him he was not going to procede into the secure area in the state he was in. He was welcome to stand outside the area, but he wasn't going further - if he did, he would be placed under arrest for entering a secure area unauthorized, which was a Federal crime. The police showed up in quick fashion and arrested him for public intoxication. Why didn't the TSA do the same thing? Were they just blinded by the fact these guys were in pilot's uniforms? My central point remains this - we spend too much time and money punishing than we do preventing, and we'd all be better off if we did more of the latter, as that would negate the need for the former. On 7/24/05 6:39 AM, in article 5g66e1pr8d1hduros9rnshju68fbqm31n7@4ax.com, > This nation spends far more money in "punishing" > crime than it does preventing it. True, we punish pot smoking and allow murder, rape and robbery and graft to fester, as pot smoking as far more dangerous than murder, rape, robbery, or graft. ej >On 7/24/05 6:39 AM, in article 5g66e1pr8d1hduros9rnshju68fbqm31n7@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >fester, as pot smoking as far more dangerous than murder, rape, robbery, or >graft. You are correct - you can do more time for smoking a joint than killing someone in most locales. I have no problem with drug or alcohol use, abuse is a totally different story. Abuse often leads to other crimes - well, maybe not smoking pot - that just leads to eating a lot of junk food... On 7/24/05 2:27 AM, in article orn5e1dfkefg0h8fe42b137ipl42u5vg9q@4ax.com, > How much experience have you had dealing with the mindset of an > alcoholic? Lots. My brother is just drying out, my aunt is experiencing a relapse, and my grandfather tuned his wife and children into spooky neurotics with smoking, gambling and drinking problems. My father's father and uncles were drunks, and the husband of one of his sister's was a super drunk. They produced 5 children, one of which is a super alcoholic. I also come from Nevada where there is 24 hour booze and gambling. So, yes, I do have lots of experience with the mindset of alcoholics and addicts...and pilots. My father and brother are both airforce pilots and commercial airline pilots. Both are retired /separated from the Air Force and my father is retired. My brother is a commercial airline pilot and a marketing manager for the largest aircraft leasing company in the world. Further, I have worked in the marketing department of KLM and currently in the same department for Air Holland/AirExel/Arkefly. So I do know something about drunks, pilots, pilot drunks, drunk pilots and the business in general. ej >On 7/24/05 2:27 AM, in article orn5e1dfkefg0h8fe42b137ipl42u5vg9q@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >So I do know something about drunks, pilots, pilot drunks, drunk pilots and >the business in general. So it sounds like we're coming from roughly the same place, we just have different takes - it happens. I used to be with Evergreen, American and the now-defunct Western Pacific, in addition to being a travel agent and airport security. I worked several jobs with the airlines - from ramp rat with Evergreen, handling UPS 757s and 727s to reservations and tarriffing with American, to jack-of-all-trades at Western Pacific. My cousin worked for Boeing-Wichita, retired as Chief Comptroller there in the 1990's. My late fiance's brother was a LANTIRN F-16 pilot at Hill AFB in Utah, he's since left the military and now flies right seat on the CRJ with Skywest out of Salt Lake - I still see him almost everytime he comes back here to OKC. We've become really close friends since we lost Michelle. In addition, I have a lot of other close friends who are also active or retired pilots. > On 7/24/05 2:27 AM, in article > orn5e1dfkefg0h8fe42b137ipl42u5vg9q@4ax.com, "The Shadow Knows..." [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > his sister's was a super drunk. They produced 5 children, one of which > is a super alcoholic. That explains you, JJ, as addicts to tend to run in famililies. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time "> Lots. My brother is just drying out, my aunt is experiencing a relapse, and > my grandfather tuned his wife and children into spooky neurotics with > smoking, gambling and drinking problems. Yor brother the PILOT??? is drying out...? > So I do know something about drunks, pilots, pilot drunks, drunk pilots > and > the business in general. You may know about pilots and drunks, but you know crap about aircraft and how they work. Snow... On 7/25/05 9:37 PM, in article pebFe.1550$q23.331056@news20.bellglobal.com, > "> Lots. My brother is just drying out, my aunt is experiencing a relapse, > and >> my grandfather tuned his wife and children into spooky neurotics with >> smoking, gambling and drinking problems. > > Yor brother the PILOT??? is drying out...? I have 2 brothers. One is an over achiever. The other isn't. You have heard of families with three kids, right? ej On 7/25/05 9:37 PM, in article pebFe.1550$q23.331056@news20.bellglobal.com, > So I do know something about drunks, pilots, pilot drunks, drunk pilots >> and >> the business in general. > > You may know about pilots and drunks, but you know crap about aircraft and > how they work. Actually it is you who has no grasp of the entire discussion. ej On 7/24/05 2:27 AM, in article orn5e1dfkefg0h8fe42b137ipl42u5vg9q@4ax.com, > If you're addicted, you tend to think you're a deity and > will never get caught - the threat of jail never enters your mind. Which is why it is good these guys went. This does not go unnoticed by the industry or its players. ej On 7/24/05 2:27 AM, in article orn5e1dfkefg0h8fe42b137ipl42u5vg9q@4ax.com, > Trust me, I've been down that ugly road and I hope neither you nor > anyone you love ever ends up on it. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, read the book, seen the movie, watched the TV-show spin-off and the cartoon version of that. ej >On 7/24/05 2:27 AM, in article orn5e1dfkefg0h8fe42b137ipl42u5vg9q@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, read the book, seen the movie, >watched the TV-show spin-off and the cartoon version of that. Kinda sucks, doesn't it? > Actually, the aircraft in question - the Airbus A-318/319/320/321 > series can takeoff and land without input from the pilot. FAA > Regulations, however, do not permit that kind of operation, they > require a pilot in control during these stages of the flight. Actually, I knew that, which is why I posed the question the way I did. WIllingly putting people at risk (drinking before operating a passenger aircraft) is what deserves jail time. It's not about "benefit to society" but "punishment." Yeah, they lost their jobs. That's as it should be - that should happen whether or not there are passengers. But there were, and that's why jail is warranted. This is not the only occasion where one mistake can kill your career and ruin your life. I would call this the biggest mistake a commercial pilot could possibly make. Up to and including mistakes made in the air in an emergency situation. E.P. >> Actually, the aircraft in question - the Airbus A-318/319/320/321 >> series can takeoff and land without input from the pilot. FAA [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >aircraft) is what deserves jail time. It's not about "benefit to >society" but "punishment." Believe me, I am not discounting the danger these pilots posed to the passengers aboard or the public in general when I said that jail time isn't warranted. In a time when virtually every prison is overcrowded, locking up someone who does not pose an imminent threat to society is not the best approach, IMO. Fines, some type of house arrest - defintely some alcohol abuse counseling - that's probably better for all of us as a whole than simply putting them in a cell. But we Americans don't like the idea of being proactive and reform - we just want to punish, punish, punish - even if it doesn't do any good. >Yeah, they lost their jobs. That's as it should be - that should >happen whether or not there are passengers. But there were, and that's >why jail is warranted. This is not the only occasion where one mistake >can kill your career and ruin your life. I would call this the biggest >mistake a commercial pilot could possibly make. Up to and including >mistakes made in the air in an emergency situation. I don't disagree that it's probably the biggest mistake a commercial pilot can make. I've long been a critic of the 8-hour "bottle to throttle" rule - I think it should be at least 12 hours. What I am saying is that throwing them behind bars will not serve and good purpose. The pilot's unions and the airlines have long turned their eyes away from the problem of alcohol abuse within their ranks. Throwing two guys in prison and saying "We got tough on this!" is merely lip service to the problem. This never would have happened if both the unions and the airlines were proactive in stopping alcohol abuse and encouraging treatment. For a pilot to admit that he or she is an alcoholic - it's a career death sentence, so it remains hidden. One of my family's best friends is a retired Continental Airlines DC-10 Captain and a recovering alcoholic - he didn't dare admit his problem while on the line. He never flew drunk, but admits he was hungover many times. It was not until he retired that he sought help. If the airlines and the unions admitted the problem exists and worked towards getting these people help rather than making them hide out of fear - then we'd be doing something. This sentencing is not going to change the industry's mindset - they will continue to play ostrich and treat this as a freak occurence, when it's more common than we'd like to think. > Believe me, I am not discounting the danger these pilots posed to > the passengers aboard or the public in general when I said that jail > time isn't warranted. In a time when virtually every prison is > overcrowded, locking up someone who does not pose an imminent threat > to society is not the best approach, IMO. They were an imminent threat to the hundred or so passengers on that plane, to the passengers on every plane nearby, and to the people on the ground in their flight path, who could have been killed had they crashed. They are flying a vehicle with a hundred human lives and a couple of thousand gallons of highly volatile fuel. At high speeds. Over populated areas. >Fines, some type of house > arrest - defintely some alcohol abuse counseling - that's probably > better for all of us as a whole than simply putting them in a cell. > But we Americans don't like the idea of being proactive and reform - > we just want to punish, punish, punish - even if it doesn't do any > good. How about deterrence? There are generally four types of crimes: 1. Sexual motivation 2. Profit motivation 3. Lose your temper 4. Just plain stupid This crime falls in the last category. The categories are listed from least deterred by prison to most. I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. > The pilot's unions and the airlines have long turned their > eyes away from the problem of alcohol abuse within their ranks. All the more reason to make an example of them. > Throwing two guys in prison and saying "We got tough on this!" is > merely lip service to the problem. No, it scares the pilot who likes to drink in to not doing so. Bo Raxo >> Believe me, I am not discounting the danger these pilots posed to >> the passengers aboard or the public in general when I said that jail [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >flying a vehicle with a hundred human lives and a couple of thousand gallons >of highly volatile fuel. At high speeds. Over populated areas. Ture, but I was speaking on terms of today and the future, not the past. Go back and read, I have never said that these guys don't deserve some level of punishment - I have only said that putting them in jail does nothing. Why is it that you and others seem to think that saying "no jail" equals "no punishment"? >>Fines, some type of house >> arrest - defintely some alcohol abuse counseling - that's probably [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >This crime falls in the last category. The categories are listed from least >deterred by prison to most. I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. No, because I've seen #4 occur again and again and no threat of jail serves as a deterrent. Come down to Oklahoma sometime and meet people who have 5 DUIs and have never spent a day in prison. I can tell you from my own experiences a decade ago that the idea of going to jail didn't mean sh.t when I'd drive drunk - you have to understand this mindset. I got sober and turned my life around before I ever faced a Judge, but I can guarantee you that the thought of facing one was never in my mind when I was drinking. >> The pilot's unions and the airlines have long turned their >> eyes away from the problem of alcohol abuse within their ranks. > >All the more reason to make an example of them. I agree, but I also know that's not going to happen. >> Throwing two guys in prison and saying "We got tough on this!" is >> merely lip service to the problem. > >No, it scares the pilot who likes to drink in to not doing so. You don't know the first thing about alcoholism, do you? I really wish it was that damn easy... < snip > > They are flying a vehicle with a hundred human lives and a couple of thousand > gallons of highly volatile fuel. Jet A is *not* a highly volatile fuel btw. It's basically kerosene. Graham > < snip > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jet A is *not* a highly volatile fuel btw. It's basically kerosene. Which will burn just fine in the event of a crash. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time > > < snip > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Which will burn just fine in the event of a crash. Oh sure, especially if it's atomised by impact. It's just not *highly volatile*. The crash of a high speed train seveal years ago near London resulted in a surprisingly fierce fire on account of the atomisation of the diesel fuel it was carrying. Normally diesel really isn't that flammable. Graham > > > < snip > > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Graham Hell, standard flour is a volatile fuel if its ignited while suspended as dust in the air. Don't believe me? Take a handful of flour and throw it at an open flame, such as the burner on a gas stove. Enough of it and it'll actually explode like a small bomb. I think the new super bombs use a similar method to increase the explosive results - otherwise called fuel bombs. GEM > > > > < snip > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > an open flame, such as the burner on a gas stove. Enough of it and it'll > actually explode like a small bomb. Oh, I'm aware of that. It's all about maximising surface area for combustion in that case. I've heard it speculated that the Lusitania sank so quickly on account of a coal dust explosion after she was torpedoed. Kinda makes sense. > I think the new super bombs use a similar method to increase the explosive > results - otherwise called fuel bombs. Don't they have some fancy technical name for those ? Graham "> Don't they have some fancy technical name for those ? Napalm .. jellied fuel. Snow... > "> Don't they have some fancy technical name for those ? > > Napalm .. jellied fuel. Not the same thing at all. It's something like Fuel Air Bomb. Graham >> < snip > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Which will burn just fine in the event of a crash. But it's not Volatile - Jet-A needs particular circumstances for it to ignite, generally this is it becoming misted, which indeed happens in a crash. What Graham was saying is that the fuel itself is not considered volatile - you can toss a lit match into a tub of Jet-A and it won't do anything. It has to combine with enough oxygen in a mist or vapor form before it lights off. > >>> They are flying a vehicle with a hundred human lives and a couple of > >>> thousand gallons of highly volatile fuel. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it won't do anything. It has to combine with enough oxygen in a mist > or vapor form before it lights off. Doesn't matter. Cmdr. Donaldson said Jet-A cannot burn and so anyone who tries using it as a fuel must be an idiot, remember? Threw a flaming match into a bucket of Jet-A and the match went out. So Flight 800 can't have been using Jet-A either, because Donaldson said it won't burn... Or else he's only said it won't burn in bulk at room temperature and pressure... which is at best stupid and pointless, and at worse a malicious intent to mislead. SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com >> >>> They are flying a vehicle with a hundred human lives and a couple of >> >>> thousand gallons of highly volatile fuel. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >pressure... which is at best stupid and pointless, and at worse a >malicious intent to mislead. Oh, deities, I had put Donaldson out of my head. Thanks, Scott, it's like it's 1997 on ADA all over again... > >> >>> They are flying a vehicle with a hundred human lives and a couple of > >> >>> thousand gallons of highly volatile fuel. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Oh, deities, I had put Donaldson out of my head. Thanks, Scott, > it's like it's 1997 on ADA all over again... I see that Stan paid a revisit there last week, with some more Flight 800 conspiro stuff.. SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com >> >> >>> They are flying a vehicle with a hundred human lives and a couple of >> >> >>> thousand gallons of highly volatile fuel. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >I see that Stan paid a revisit there last week, with some more Flight >800 conspiro stuff.. Indeed he did. I rarely visit the group anymore, but I saw that one - Stan's still flogging the same discredited BS after 9 years... I yould be one thing is he had something new. but it's the same garbage he was offering up in 1997. > >> > Cmdr. Donaldson said Jet-A cannot burn and so anyone > >> > who tries using it as a fuel must be an idiot, remember? Threw a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > yould be one thing is he had something new. but it's the same garbage > he was offering up in 1997. I am puzzled as to why Stan continues to go down that line. The aviation industry has long since applied the lessons of that crash, and has moved on to new issues. SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com > >> < snip > > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > it won't do anything. It has to combine with enough oxygen in a mist > or vapor form before it lights off. As a younger chap I recall struggling with a camping style 'paraffin stove', trying to get the damn thing to light ! There was a little 'ring' around the burner that you filled with methylated spirits ( wood alcohol to you guys ? ) that was needed to get things hot enough for combustion to commence. Now try doing it in the rain ! UK 'paraffin' = kerosene btw. Graham >> >> < snip > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > UK 'paraffin' = kerosene btw. In the US, paraffin is what is used to make candles and ski wax. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time > >> >> < snip > > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > In the US, paraffin is what is used to make candles and ski wax. Both are technically wrong or more accurately abbreviations. You're referring to paraffin wax. I'm talking about paraffin oil. Graham > But it's not Volatile - Jet-A needs particular circumstances for it > to ignite, generally this is it becoming misted, which indeed happens > in a crash. What Graham was saying is that the fuel itself is not > considered volatile - you can toss a lit match into a tub of Jet-A and > it won't do anything. It has to combine with enough oxygen in a mist > or vapor form before it lights off. Merriam Webster online defines volatile as 1 : readily vaporizable at a relatively low temperature Jet A is not readily vaporizable at a relatively low temperature. Describing a substance as volatile says nothing about whether it is flammable. Dry ice is volatile. John Mara "> Actually, the aircraft in question - the Airbus A-318/319/320/321 > series can takeoff . This became of > particular interest after the 1988 crash of an Air France A-320 at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the forest just beyond the runway, killing three people aboard the > jet. Yeah but it also showed that the breakers were pulled for certain systems, as the plane will NOT allow the pilots to perform a slow and dirty fly-by, it will automatically apply throttle and elevator and climb out. Snow... > "> Actually, the aircraft in question - the Airbus A-318/319/320/321 > > series can takeoff . This became of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > as the plane will NOT allow the pilots to perform a slow and dirty fly-by, > it will automatically apply throttle and elevator and climb out. You're talking utter rubbish again. The plane will do what it's told to do if the alpha floor function is disabled, which is exactly what happened in this case. Graham >"> Actually, the aircraft in question - the Airbus A-318/319/320/321 >> series can takeoff . This became of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >as the plane will NOT allow the pilots to perform a slow and dirty fly-by, >it will automatically apply throttle and elevator and climb out. Which brings up the question of who's smarter, the human or the computer? My point was simply that modern aircraft can fly themselves with minimal human input, they just aren't allowed to do so in the United States. > Which brings up the question of who's smarter, the human or the >computer? Computers are programmed by humans, and computers can't change their own programming the way humans can. Didn't one of the fighter jets a few years ago have a bug in the navigation system so if you went south of the equator the plane flipped over? -Pete Zakel (phz@seeheader.nospam) "Why is it, everytime I see Dan Quayle, I feel like buying a vowel?" -Emo Phillips > > Which brings up the question of who's smarter, the human or the > >computer? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Didn't one of the fighter jets a few years ago have a bug in the navigation > system so if you went south of the equator the plane flipped over? Sounds like a classic urban myth to me. Graham >plus.net!not-for-mail >Xref: news.cadence.com rec.autos.driving:416915 misc.transport.road:288130 alt.true-crime:473018 talk.politics.drugs:381511 alt.rush-limbaugh:576002 >> Didn't one of the fighter jets a few years ago have a bug in the navigation >> system so if you went south of the equator the plane flipped over? >Sounds like a classic urban myth to me. Read it in Science News a while ago. I've been trying to google a reference, but so far I've only seen the reference to the event in the blurb about a book currently on sale: _Latitude_Zero:_Tales_of_the_Equator_ which refers to the incident. Note that one of the Mars probes crashed because one team was using English units and the other was using metric units. These types of computer errors happen all the time because it is humans programming the computers. -Pete Zakel (phz@seeheader.nospam) "You can create your own opportunities this week. Blackmail a senior executive." > > Which brings up the question of who's smarter, the human or the > >computer? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Didn't one of the fighter jets a few years ago have a bug in the navigation > system so if you went south of the equator the plane flipped over? You might be thinking of the software glitch in the Saab JAS-39, known as the Gripen (in English, Griffin). A completely fly by wire craft, the programmers didn't allow for pitch oscillations which created a delay in the pilot's controls. The delay would cause the pilot inputs to be out of phase with what the craft's control surfaces were actually doing, and the computer would go to full nanny, taking over from the pilot. The first prototype crashed on the sixth test flight. The pilot walked away with only a broken arm. Four years later, the second prototype crashed, same pilot. http://www.vectorsite.net/avgrpn.html http://www.zap16.com/mil%20fact/saab%20jas39%20gripen.htm Bo Raxo > >> You don't know much about flying aircraft nor the systems that control them > >> either do you???? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > a low pass over the airshow crowd, while the pilot was fighting the > computer for control. Actually that is *not* what the official accident report said. It's a controversial incident but it's far more likely that the crew had become excessively over-confident in the automation's ability to get them *out* of trouble that was a major factor. Graham >> >> You don't know much about flying aircraft nor the systems that control them >> >> either do you???? [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >excessively over-confident in the automation's ability to get them *out* of trouble >that was a major factor. No, the official accident report was written by the French to make their beloved Airbus look as best as possible. Those aboard the aircraft tell a different story. Now behave yourself before I send Bertie after you... > >> >> You don't know much about flying aircraft nor the systems that control them > >> >> either do you???? [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > No, the official accident report was written by the French to make > their beloved Airbus look as best as possible. There's certainly plenty to argue about. There's the question over the 'real' FDR too. > Those aboard the aircraft tell a different story. You mean the flight crew ? I'm well aware that Capt Asseline feels very strongly about what happened. Even Capt Asseline says he was ( with the benefit of hindsight) over confident in the ability of the automation. Indeed it's mentioned in the accident report. http://www.flightdeckautomation.com/resourceevid.aspx?ID=1 > Now behave yourself before I send Bertie after you... Oooh. I'm scared ! I believe Bertie tends to the opinion it was bad flying btw. Graham > Now behave yourself before I send Bertie after you... Paul ? Graham >> Now behave yourself before I send Bertie after you... > >Paul ? Gooding? Nah, that wouldn't be me - I'm KRC, longtime ADA hand before Jason and his gallery of loons took the place over. I was just teasing you, because I know Bertie loves to jump your case whenever he gets an opportunity. On 7/22/05 9:11 PM, in article muf2e1hcvnm28k31hvr28e7vepsklmagkb@4ax.com, > Actually, the aircraft in question - the Airbus A-318/319/320/321 > series can takeoff and land without input from the pilot. Who steers it down the runway? You can turn on the auto pilot and it will move the throttles to 105%, and it will more or less go on the runway heading, but the runway is not wide enough to equal 1 degree of compass movement, so unless the aircraft is positioned exactly straight on the runway, and acceleration conditions are exactly perfect, it will likely leave the runway. I know of no connection of the landing gear to the auto pilot, nor do the flaps seem to be coupled to the auto pilot. ej >On 7/22/05 9:11 PM, in article muf2e1hcvnm28k31hvr28e7vepsklmagkb@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >I know of no connection of the landing gear to the auto pilot, nor do the >flaps seem to be coupled to the auto pilot. I do not know what your problem is, unless you're just one of those wanting to start a fight (which your multiple replies leads me to believe) - I said the plane can takeoff and land without input from the pilot. I did not say that is how it is done in regular operations - if fact, I thought I had made it clear that such was not permitted by FAA regulations? So your question is utterly irrelevant. You further show you are trying to provoke something by taking my inital and true statement that the aircraft can takeoff without pilot input into other systems that can be controlled automatically, but are not. Jeez, where do you people get the idea that I am defending these bozos? I'm simply pointing out facts to flesh out the situation - I've only said that jail time probably isn't appropriate - I've never said they were innocent or don't deserve to lose their careers...sheesh! Can you people try reading once in a while? On 7/23/05 5:33 PM, in article 7do4e1pjc98qq1o451rmpba601h999qs0p@4ax.com, > I do not know what your problem is, unless you're just one of those > wanting to start a fight (which your multiple replies leads me to > believe) - I said the plane can takeoff and land without input from > the pilot. And you are incorrect. My multiple replies is a feature of my style which prevents people from not reading long posts which are worked on. Notice each post is small and easy to read. ej >On 7/23/05 5:33 PM, in article 7do4e1pjc98qq1o451rmpba601h999qs0p@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Notice each post is small and easy to read. Actually, it's an annoying waste of bandwidth. On 7/24/05 1:41 AM, in article ocl5e1503h4gjdnh65t6offoc1719h555k@4ax.com, >> On 7/23/05 5:33 PM, in article 7do4e1pjc98qq1o451rmpba601h999qs0p@4ax.com, >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Actually, it's an annoying waste of bandwidth. No, it isn't. There is plenty of bandwidth four usenet in 2005. Are you still using AOL? Ej >On 7/24/05 1:41 AM, in article ocl5e1503h4gjdnh65t6offoc1719h555k@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Are you still using AOL? I've never used AOL except when I had to - I was working for them at the time. I use Cox Cable, as if the headers don't show that. I know there's plenty of bandwidth, I've been in the IT business since I left the airlines, I'm well aware of the capabilities of current-day lines and equipment. That doesn't mean you aren't wasting bandwidth, and for that matter it doesn't mean I'm not as well... >>On 7/24/05 1:41 AM, in article >>ocl5e1503h4gjdnh65t6offoc1719h555k@4ax.com, "The Shadow Knows..." [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > That doesn't mean you aren't wasting bandwidth, and > for that matter it doesn't mean I'm not as well... There isnt any such thing as wasting bandwidth except in the local sense. There is so much over-capacity in the Internet right now it is funny. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time >>>On 7/24/05 1:41 AM, in article >>>ocl5e1503h4gjdnh65t6offoc1719h555k@4ax.com, "The Shadow Knows..." [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >sense. There is so much over-capacity in the Internet right now it is >funny. I'm using the prhase in the same sense that someone babbling is "wasting oxygen"... > No, it isn't. There is plenty of bandwidth four usenet in 2005. "Four" usenet? Do you need someone to proofread your posts, JJ/ SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time On 7/24/05 7:39 PM, in article Xns969D6C649EBEDretsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6, "Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote: >> No, it isn't. There is plenty of bandwidth four usenet in 2005. > > "Four" usenet? Do you need someone to proofread your posts, EJ I never said I don't make mistakes, junkie Eric Johnson <erj66@xs4all.nl> wrote in news:BF09DC71.8D87E%erj66 @xs4all.nl: > On 7/24/05 7:39 PM, in article > Xns969D6C649EBEDretsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6, "Dave Lister" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I never said I don't make mistakes, junkie It really is interesting that JJ manages to proofread the posts of others and stick "(sic)" all over them. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time On 7/25/05 2:02 AM, in article Xns969DAD4BDC17retsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6, "Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote: >> I never said I don't make mistakes, junkie > > It really is interesting that JJ manages to proofread the posts of others > and stick "(sic)" all over them. Dave, you do claim perfection. ej > On 7/25/05 2:02 AM, in article > Xns969DAD4BDC17retsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6, "Dave Lister" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Dave, you do claim perfection. Cite please, junkie. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time On 7/23/05 5:33 PM, in article 7do4e1pjc98qq1o451rmpba601h999qs0p@4ax.com, > if fact, I thought I had made it clear that such was not permitted > by FAA regulations? You got that wrong as well. ej On 7/23/05 5:33 PM, in article 7do4e1pjc98qq1o451rmpba601h999qs0p@4ax.com, > So your question is utterly irrelevant. No it isn't. You have made a wild claim about the ability of aircraft to do x. I happen tom know they will not do x, under any conditions. It will do y, which is land itself, an procedure undertaken every day in the usa and elsewhere. You are also not the only one participating in this thread. Go away if you wish, but not with the incorrect idea that planes will do x as you state. ej On 7/23/05 5:33 PM, in article 7do4e1pjc98qq1o451rmpba601h999qs0p@4ax.com, > You > further show you are trying to provoke something by taking my inital > and true statement that the aircraft can takeoff without pilot input Which it cannot. ej >On 7/23/05 5:33 PM, in article 7do4e1pjc98qq1o451rmpba601h999qs0p@4ax.com, > >> You >> further show you are trying to provoke something by taking my inital >> and true statement that the aircraft can takeoff without pilot input >Which it cannot. Okay, you're right, Airbus engineers are wrong. Glad we got that cleared up... On 7/24/05 1:44 AM, in article vgl5e11elrc1qev6ppc98rvbbfo9cdtjdl@4ax.com, >> On 7/23/05 5:33 PM, in article 7do4e1pjc98qq1o451rmpba601h999qs0p@4ax.com, >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Okay, you're right, Airbus engineers are wrong. Glad we got that > cleared up... I'm sorry, but I am very close to the business. The planes cannot fly unassisted. You are just simply wrong. If you wish to show documentation, I am willing to read it. ej > On 7/24/05 1:44 AM, in article > vgl5e11elrc1qev6ppc98rvbbfo9cdtjdl@4ax.com, "The Shadow Knows..." [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I'm sorry, but I am very close to the business. JJ thinks translating in-flight magazines is being close to the business. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time On 7/24/05 7:42 PM, in article Xns969D6CE93FF1Cretsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6, "Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/24/05 1:44 AM, in article >> vgl5e11elrc1qev6ppc98rvbbfo9cdtjdl@4ax.com, "The Shadow Knows..." [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > JJ thinks translating in-flight magazines is being close to the business. I am far closer than that, junkie: My father and brother are pilots. My father is a retired air force and airline pilot of about 40,000 hours and two overseas tours and 15 years of international commercial flying as a Captain for American Airlines. He flew the T-33, the F84, the F 86, the B-26, the F-100, the F-101, the F-4, and the C-131 for the US air Force and the DC-6, Lockheed Elektra, the 707, the 747, the DC-10, the 727 and the 767 for American Airlines. He was also a private flight instructor and ferry pilot for new aircraft before joining the Aviation Cadet program. My brother trained in the T-33 and T-38 and went on to fly several thousand hours as co-pilot and pilot-in-command of the B-52 stationed in Guam and in Louisiana. In 1991 he left the Air Force as an Academy graduate with a degree in Aeronautical Engineering and with 6 years of Air Force flight duty to take a job with American Airlines. He flew the 727 as flight engineer out of Miami to South and Central America and the Caribbean. He then moved to the right seat of the Fokker 100 and on to the right seat of the 737-800, after a stint as Flight Engineer on the DC-10 which led as planned to the pair working a number of Los Angeles Honolulu flights. My brother, having gotten an MBA while in the Air Force (advanced degrees being required to move beyond captain) earned also a law degree by taking two year-long leaves of absence and working the third year of law school. He used this degree and his experience to become first a lawyer for International Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC), the company which invented the industry of aircraft leasing and the owner of the largest commercial airline fleet in the USA, and then a marketing manager. For the past several years, ending in 2004, he worked (mostly) weekends in the cockpit and weekdays in the office, leasing commercial aircraft, like the B-777, to the likes of KLM, Royal Dutch Airlines. ILFC is also a launch customer for the airbus 380, and my brother's boss, Steven Udvar-Hazi was alongside the president's of France, Spain, and Great Britain as the aircraft was unveiled this year. Me, I am too ill with a muscle and nerve disease to be a pilot, but I grew up an air force and airline brat, listening to all the conversations and reading the industry magazines like aviation week and Air Transport World. But I, too, work in the business. I have worked in the marketing department of KLM where I wrote two books which were circulated to all KLM establishments world wide concerning their revenue or "yield," management system of price and inventory control. This book was a central controlling document within KLM for ten years, or so I was told in 2003 by Onno van den Brink, now CEO of Transavia, but then the revenue manager of the North Atlantic revenue group who gave me the assignment. Revenue group North Atlantic was also the first place where Northwest Airlines and KLM physically integrated yield, price and capacity management by locating Northwest employees in Amsterdam and managing yield for all North Atlantic Traffic on both airlines from there. This was going on at the time I was there and the consequences there from had to be included in my book. I now work for Arke-Fly, the Dutch based airline of TUI, the largest tour operator in the world. Arkefly is a new airline built from the ashes of several bankrupt carriers. Also, my foreign exchange as a young man, which continues to this day, was to Germany with the family of a Lufthansa pilot who later moved to the charter-airline daughter company of Lufthansa, Condor,in order to fly in the left seat. He retired 5 years after my father, in 2000. Lastly, I have spent considerable time using versions 5.x 6.x, 7.x, and 8.x of the flight simulator X-plane, with which one may, from version 6.3 onward accrue time toward achieving one's Air Transport Certificate. See www.x-plane.com for details. So you see, I have spent a lifetime in an around the industry,and I am well informed about these things. ej > On 7/24/05 7:42 PM, in article > Xns969D6CE93FF1Cretsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6, "Dave Lister" [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > I am far closer than that, junkie: I don't care what your father and your brother do, JJ. Nor do I care how much you play with a flight simulator or how many magazines you translate. You still ain't a pilot. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time On 7/25/05 2:04 AM, in article Xns969DAD9DBF3E3retsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6, "Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/24/05 7:42 PM, in article >> Xns969D6CE93FF1Cretsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6, "Dave Lister" >> <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote: >> I am far closer than that, junkie: > > I don't care what your father and your brother do, EJ. Nor do I care how > much you play with a flight simulator or how many magazines you > translate. You still ain't a pilot. Never said I was, dave E. But I have had all the right answers in this thread. BY the way, isn't what I described about myself hanging around in the business, but without pilot credentials, just about like your alleged knowledge of addiction...that is by hanging around in the business and listening to the professionals and reading the industry literature? If this makes you qualified to diagnose people over the internet, it is sure enough to speak on the subject of commercial avionics. God you are a fool to set such traps for yourself. > BY the way, isn't what I described about myself hanging around in the > business, but without pilot credentials, just about like your alleged [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If this makes you qualified to diagnose people over the internet, it > is sure enough to speak on the subject of commercial avionics. You have it exactly backwards, junkie. If I'm not qualified to speak, neither are you. > God you are a fool to set such traps for yourself. Poor junkie, chewing on his own leg, and claimig the rest of the world is in a trap. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time On 7/25/05 6:04 PM, in article Xns969E5C4F2E0E2retsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6, "Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote: > on the subject of commercial avionics. > > You have it exactly backwards, junkie. If I'm not qualified to speak, > neither are you. Then why did I call everything perfectly? You will not give me credit for anything in any case, so STFU. ej Eric Johnson <erj66@xs4all.nl> wrote in news:BF0B161A.8DA75%erj66 @xs4all.nl: > On 7/25/05 6:04 PM, in article > Xns969E5C4F2E0E2retsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6, "Dave Lister" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You will not give me credit for anything in any case, so STFU. I give you credit for being a whiny pathetic befuddled reactionary ex- patriot junkie, JJ. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time On 7/25/05 11:51 PM, in article Xns969E97353AF98retsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6, "Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote: > I give you credit for nothing. That is what I thought. ej Eric Johnson <erj66@xs4all.nl> wrote in news:BF0BB4D8.8DD39%erj66 @xs4all.nl: > On 7/25/05 11:51 PM, in article > Xns969E97353AF98retsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6, "Dave Lister" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That is what I thought. I give you all the credit you deserve, JJ. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time On 7/26/05 6:25 PM, in article Xns969F5FF11A222retsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6, "Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote: > Eric Johnson <erj66@xs4all.nl> wrote in news:BF0BB4D8.8DD39%erj66 > @xs4all.nl: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I give you all the credit you deserve, EJ. Thank you very much, dave. I really appreciate that. I knew that all this time you could not possibly hold the kind of contempt for me that you have been posting, and now I see it was all sarcasm. It was very effective in showing what kind of mean spirited weirdoes support prohibition and the idiotic nature of people who make diagnoses of serious medical conditions with little information about the patient. Given that you have now shown that you were not serious by giving me the credit I am due, which is quite a bit if I do say so myself, I'll do the same and cease the appropriate responses too such abuse of people on the internet. I have to admit you surprised me, as I thought you were a serious f.cking a.shole and son of a bitch with an active hate spell on humanity and those who disagreed with your ridiculous preannouncements. Once again, thank you for admitting that I have fundamental worth, I am well studied, and damn successful given the physical problems I have to deal with. Once again, thanks. Sincerely yours, Eric Johnson, Amsterdam >> BY the way, isn't what I described about myself hanging around in the >> business, but without pilot credentials, just about like your alleged [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You have it exactly backwards, junkie. If I'm not qualified to speak, > neither are you. Well, at least you admit you're not qualified to speak, Lister. On 7/23/05 5:33 PM, in article 7do4e1pjc98qq1o451rmpba601h999qs0p@4ax.com, > Jeez, where do you people get the idea that I am defending these > bozos? This is about avionics now. Nobody really disagrees with the pilot sentences. But you were trying to lessen the crime by saying the aircraft could have compensated. But you are incorrect. ej >On 7/23/05 5:33 PM, in article 7do4e1pjc98qq1o451rmpba601h999qs0p@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >But you are incorrect. I never said such a thing, you must have gotten me confused with someone else in your cut-and-paste method of replying. On 7/24/05 1:43 AM, in article vel5e1h22mjqe5d0d2rknrcjep4joulc0t@4ax.com, >> On 7/23/05 5:33 PM, in article 7do4e1pjc98qq1o451rmpba601h999qs0p@4ax.com, >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I never said such a thing, you must have gotten me confused with > someone else in your cut-and-paste method of replying. No cut and pat involved. I snip irrelevancies in order to make the posts readable. ej > On 7/24/05 1:43 AM, in article > vel5e1h22mjqe5d0d2rknrcjep4joulc0t@4ax.com, "The Shadow Knows..." [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > I snip irrelevancies in order to make the posts readable. No, you snip posts so that you can focus on them. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time On 7/24/05 7:41 PM, in article Xns969D6CCA1BF62retsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6, "Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/24/05 1:43 AM, in article >> vel5e1h22mjqe5d0d2rknrcjep4joulc0t@4ax.com, "The Shadow Knows..." [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > No, you snip posts so that you can focus on them. Yes, I snip away all the irrelevant text for readability. ej On 7/22/05 9:11 PM, in article muf2e1hcvnm28k31hvr28e7vepsklmagkb@4ax.com, > FAA > Regulations, however, do not permit that kind of operation, they > require a pilot in control during these stages of the flight Auto land is a normal part of aircraft operations and has been for 25 years. ej >On 7/22/05 9:11 PM, in article muf2e1hcvnm28k31hvr28e7vepsklmagkb@4ax.com, > >> FAA >> Regulations, however, do not permit that kind of operation, they >> require a pilot in control during these stages of the flight >Auto land is a normal part of aircraft operations and has been for 25 years. Not in the United States, the pilot must be in control of the landing. On 7/23/05 5:26 PM, in article 0co4e19n2sh2n66v2gnmco8rmh4j58if1a@4ax.com, >> On 7/22/05 9:11 PM, in article muf2e1hcvnm28k31hvr28e7vepsklmagkb@4ax.com, >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Not in the United States, the pilot must be in control of the landing. Sorry, but my dad started flying the DC-10 in 1975, and it had auto land. He changed to the 767 in 1987, and it had auto land. He returned to the DC-10 as it is bigger and faster so it paid more, and it had auto land still. My brother came online in 1991, and flew the 727 which does not have auto land. Then he started on the Fokker 100 which does and now the 737 800 which does. I don't know where you get your info, but it is certainly not from professionals in the business. ej >On 7/23/05 5:26 PM, in article 0co4e19n2sh2n66v2gnmco8rmh4j58if1a@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >I don't know where you get your info, but it is certainly not from >professionals in the business. I never said aircraft didn't have the capability, I only said that it could not be used to its full extent. I already stated that autoland was first successfully used by the Trident in 1963. I have only stated that the FAA does not permit its use - maybe I should clarify that by saying it's not permitted to touchdown, would that make you happy? Personally, I have an issue with that - its a well-proven system, why not allow it? The approach must be flown manually below 50' AGL - you can look it up in the FARs. You are really a knit-picking little nebbish who is obviously trying to provoke a fight in your epic quest to be right about every damn detail. On 7/24/05 1:55 AM, in article ejl5e1ddqd4kh0sblg7rec7qhnaq1e2qnp@4ax.com, > I never said aircraft didn't have the capability, I only said that > it could not be used to its full extent. And you are completely wrong. Auto-lands are done regularly if for no other purpose than to keep the pilots familiar with how the plane flies when on auto land. ej On 7/24/05 1:55 AM, in article ejl5e1ddqd4kh0sblg7rec7qhnaq1e2qnp@4ax.com, > I already stated that > autoland was first successfully used by the Trident in 1963 Which is why the three Jumbos, 747, L-1011 Tristar, the DC-10, and the space shuttle have all had auto land since they were introduced between 1969 and 1973. ej On 7/24/05 1:55 AM, in article ejl5e1ddqd4kh0sblg7rec7qhnaq1e2qnp@4ax.com, > I have > only stated that the FAA does not permit its use - maybe I should > clarify that by saying it's not permitted to touchdown, would that > make you happy? No. I know differently. ej On 7/24/05 1:55 AM, in article ejl5e1ddqd4kh0sblg7rec7qhnaq1e2qnp@4ax.com, > Personally, I have an issue with that - its a > well-proven system, why not allow it? It isn't disallowed. If it were the airlines would not pay for the avionics which support it. ej On 7/24/05 1:55 AM, in article ejl5e1ddqd4kh0sblg7rec7qhnaq1e2qnp@4ax.com, > The approach must be flown > manually below 50' AGL - you can look it up in the FARs. What you mean is that a landing may not be made if the the runway is not visible from a height of 50 feet. ej On 7/24/05 1:55 AM, in article ejl5e1ddqd4kh0sblg7rec7qhnaq1e2qnp@4ax.com, > You are > really a knit-picking little nebbish who is obviously trying to > provoke a fight in your epic quest to be right about every damn > detail. No, I am not. I know what the business has been doing for the past 30 years. My family lives and works in the middle of the business. Auto lands are allowed. ej > >On 7/22/05 9:11 PM, in article muf2e1hcvnm28k31hvr28e7vepsklmagkb@4ax.com, > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Not in the United States, the pilot must be in control of the landing. That's intruiging. I gather that Airbus actually recommend auto-land in some types of bad weather on the basis that the automation is simply bettter at doing the job than a pilot would be. Does that mean that the FAA are legislating against the possibly better and safer landing ? Graham >> >On 7/22/05 9:11 PM, in article muf2e1hcvnm28k31hvr28e7vepsklmagkb@4ax.com, >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Does that mean that the FAA are legislating against the possibly better and safer >landing ? There's an old joke that goes something like this - "What's the biggest lie in aviation?" "Hi, I'm from the FAA and I'm here to help." On 7/24/05 1:57 AM, in article b8m5e1d2t06tv6nnld59h1bkiubtvqhvv5@4ax.com, >>>> On 7/22/05 9:11 PM, in article muf2e1hcvnm28k31hvr28e7vepsklmagkb@4ax.com, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > biggest lie in aviation?" "Hi, I'm from the FAA and I'm here to > help." They don't say this. The NTSB maybe, but not the FAA. ej >On 7/24/05 1:57 AM, in article b8m5e1d2t06tv6nnld59h1bkiubtvqhvv5@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >They don't say this. >The NTSB maybe, but not the FAA. Well, it's posted on the wall at an FBO at KPWA... On 7/22/05 9:11 PM, in article muf2e1hcvnm28k31hvr28e7vepsklmagkb@4ax.com, > This > particular series of aircraft was controversial when it was introduced > due to design concept of automation taking over from human control. Actually the controversy was about detached control, or fly by wire, where the pilot's control has no physical connection to the movable wing surfaces. It has now, however become the standard. ej On 7/22/05 9:11 PM, in article muf2e1hcvnm28k31hvr28e7vepsklmagkb@4ax.com, > Investigation showed that the > aircraft's automated systems were commanding the plane to land during > a low pass over the airshow crowd, while the pilot was fighting the > computer for control. The end result is that the plane crashed into > the forest just beyond the runway, killing three people aboard the > jet. The problem was more human than technical. This was a new way of flying, and not even the test pilots fully understood the operation of the systems. ej > The problem was more human than technical. > > This was a new way of flying, and not even the test pilots fully > understood > the operation of the systems. So the fact the crew pulled the c/b's for ground proximity, auto throttles and oral warring had nothing to do with this?????? if 2 of these had not been pulled that aircraft never would have crashed in the config. it was in Snow.... > > The problem was more human than technical. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and oral warring had nothing to do with this?????? if 2 of these had not > been pulled that aircraft never would have crashed in the config. it was in Please post a link showing that circuit breakers were pulled on this flight. There's no shortage of discussion about this accident and plenty of online references, so if it happened you shouldn't have any trouble illustrating it. Graham On 7/23/05 3:20 PM, in article 7wrEe.7466$Qi4.994189@news20.bellglobal.com, > So the fact the crew pulled the c/b's for ground proximity, auto throttles > and oral warring had nothing to do with this?????? Because they were planning top do near ground maneuvers which the planes aren't really designed for. These were likely pulled to turn off the alarms. ej On 7/23/05 3:20 PM, in article 7wrEe.7466$Qi4.994189@news20.bellglobal.com, > if 2 of these had not > been pulled that aircraft never would have crashed in the config. it was in How do you know? The most frequent crash type is called controlled flight into terrain. ej > On 7/23/05 3:20 PM, in article > 7wrEe.7466$Qi4.994189@news20.bellglobal.com, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The most frequent crash type is called controlled flight into terrain. well if auto throttles c/b was "in", along with "ground terrain then the plane would have added throttle (IIRC to 105%) and climbed out, or if it was as close to the ground as some have stated over the years since it would have landed, may have over shot the remaining runway but it would have landed. and if the oral warning was in then the pilots would have had lots of warning. Snow... > > On 7/23/05 3:20 PM, in article > > 7wrEe.7466$Qi4.994189@news20.bellglobal.com, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > and if the oral warning was in then the pilots would have had lots of > warning. Why do you keep talking about circuit breakers ? There was an 'oral warning' from the radalt btw. It just wasn't piped to their headsets ! Hahahahaha ! You think it could have landed in that configuration ? You're clueless ! Incidentally, had that happened it would have overshot the runway so badly that far more ppl would likely have died. You're spouting total gibberish. Graham > There was an 'oral warning' from the radalt btw. It just wasn't piped to > their > headsets ! WOW thats a first not to mention ILLEGAL, by any airtransport authority.. all oral warnings are to be heard through flt. deck speakers and headsets. > Hahahahaha ! You think it could have landed in that configuration ? You're > clueless ! Incidentally, had that happened it would have overshot the > runway so > badly that far more ppl would likely have died. Considering the problem started occurring 1/2 way up the runway (not at the threshold, where you heard the pilot trying to add throttle), yeah the plane would have set itself down and run off at the end. > You're spouting total gibberish. you and your girlfriend ej should know best.. On 7/24/05 6:08 PM, in article Z3PEe.314$q23.52645@news20.bellglobal.com, > WOW thats a first not to mention ILLEGAL, by any airtransport authority.. > all oral warnings are to be heard through flt. deck speakers and headsets. All these things are contingent on the aircraft being operated under the commercial aircraft used in scheduled service and on duty rules. Rules for demonstrations of aircraft at air shows are different. ej > On 7/24/05 6:08 PM, in article Z3PEe.314$q23.52645@news20.bellglobal.com, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Rules for demonstrations of aircraft at air shows are different. In you own words, show us the proof that the oral warning do NOT have to be heard both over flight deck speaker and over flight deck headset depending on whether the plane is being used on a commercial shed service or demonstration. Snow... > > On 7/24/05 6:08 PM, in article Z3PEe.314$q23.52645@news20.bellglobal.com, > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > on whether the plane is being used on a commercial shed service or > demonstration. Pilot over-ride it seems. Check this. "A number of audible information inputs we get while operating the A320, while designed with the intent of providing us useful info, have two problems: 1) we cannot 'cancel' the aural input after we are aware of it (much like pushing a master caution lite 'out' after understanding the cause) and 2) the volume level is not adjustable and its too loud. I believe that the whole point of an audio callout is to give me information, but that once I receive this info, I should be able to cancel such input, and I should be able to control/modify/stop the transmission of this info at will." (A320 Captain) "The Altitude Alert Warning horns and [emphasized] the TCAS Warning horns that send the tone through our headsets (as opposed to the overhead speaker) are way too loud. Not only is it painful to the ear, it makes it impossible to hear ATC's directions, etc. this is true for about 70-80% of 737-300[s] using this configuration. Solution: Simply turn down the volume or [emphasized] reroute the tone to the overhead speakers." (B737 Captain) "TCAS aural commands being sounded over headset while ATC could be trying to relay information or trying to communicate with other crew member." (B737 Captain) http://www.flightdeckautomation.com/issueevid.aspx?ID=92 Graham Which takes me back to the fact the bone head show off fly boys shut off the oral warning system. You yourself said "There was an 'oral warning' from the radalt btw. It just wasn't piped to their headsets !, it would have gone straight there if the system wasn't shut off by the crew. My whole point was one contributing factor to that crash was that c/b's were pulled which prevented certain automatic functions of the plane from operating, functions that could in fact have saved it. Snow... >> > On 7/24/05 6:08 PM, in article >> > Z3PEe.314$q23.52645@news20.bellglobal.com, [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Graham > Which takes me back to the fact the bone head show off fly boys shut off the > oral warning system. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that c/b's were pulled which prevented certain automatic functions of the > plane from operating, functions that could in fact have saved it. And as I keep saying *no c/bs were pulled*. Now ask yourself why that is. Graham On 7/25/05 9:17 PM, in article 42E53AD4.227C2CFD@hotmail.com, "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> On 7/24/05 6:08 PM, in article Z3PEe.314$q23.52645@news20.bellglobal.com, >>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Graham Wow, I hadn't seen that one. Thanks. eric On 7/25/05 8:34 PM, in article ljaFe.1353$q23.323603@news20.bellglobal.com, > In you own words, show us the proof that the oral warning do NOT have to be > heard both over flight deck speaker and over flight deck headset depending > on whether the plane is being used on a commercial shed service or > demonstration. > > Snow... The rules for operating aircraft, and who can operate one, vary considerably from when they are in line service to when they are used in other ways. Experiment and test flights are not subject to the stringent rules for a commercial aircraft in use on a scheduled carrier. In the US, French, British, Dutch, German etcetera law. Sorry, but I am not going to find and translate all of the relevant regulations for you. ej On 7/24/05 6:08 PM, in article Z3PEe.314$q23.52645@news20.bellglobal.com, >> You're spouting total gibberish. > > you and your girlfriend ej should know best.. Proof positive we are destroying your position with our knowledge. ej On 7/24/05 1:04 AM, in article b4AEe.12674$je2.1313255@news20.bellglobal.com, "Snow" <snowbal@sympatico.ca> wrote: > well if auto throttles c/b was "in", along with "ground terrain then the > plane would have added throttle (IIRC to 105%) and climbed out, or if it was > as close to the ground as some have stated over the years since it would > have landed, may have over shot the remaining runway but it would have > landed. I have seen video of this crash...he was flying over a forest when he crashed into it. ej On 7/22/05 9:11 PM, in article muf2e1hcvnm28k31hvr28e7vepsklmagkb@4ax.com, > The automation is all well and good in certain aspects, but you > still need alert persons to monitor the automated functions and take > control when necessary. Further, the automated controls are not automated. They have to be controlled by someone. Someone has to be there to change radio frequencies, adjust the barometric reading on the altimeter to the landing station, operate the flaps and gear, and to switch from FMC to ILS autoland, and probably to adjust the radio frequencies for the proper ADF, NDB, VOR and ILS for the assigned approach and runway. And then if there is someone on the runway, I know no part of the auto pilot which deals with missed-approaches or go-arounds. So someone has to be there. ej > On 7/22/05 9:11 PM, in article muf2e1hcvnm28k31hvr28e7vepsklmagkb@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > And then if there is someone on the runway, I know no part of the auto pilot > which deals with missed-approaches or go-arounds. On a visit to Bombay once, the normally excellent landing in the BA 747 was below par. The co-pilot came on the PA afterwards to apologise. They'd had to avoid a dog running across the runway ! > So someone has to be there. Yup. Graham > OK, since you want to be contrary, name the airlines and aircraft that > use no pilot input from ramp to ramp. Most any airline that has flown the Lockheed L-1011 over the past 30 years (first plane designed to taxi,take-off, fly and land by itself. But that is all relevant to what overseeing authority your also taking about. Snow... > > OK, since you want to be contrary, name the airlines and aircraft that > > use no pilot input from ramp to ramp. > > > Most any airline that has flown the Lockheed L-1011 over the past 30 years > (first plane designed to taxi,take-off, fly and land by itself. But they *don't*, period. As you can see that I said in my first post. If you'd stop trying to be a smart-a.s, you'd see that what I said originally was *100% correct*. BTW, the answer to the question I posed above is "none of them do." Thus, pilots have to be sharp to do the business they're required to do, that relevant systems are not allowed to do, under FAA rules. E.P. > > OK, since you want to be contrary, name the airlines and aircraft that > > use no pilot input from ramp to ramp. > > > Most any airline that has flown the Lockheed L-1011 over the past 30 years > (first plane designed to taxi,take-off, fly and land by itself. Do please post any info about the L1011's auto-taxi. Graham On 7/23/05 1:00 AM, in article RVeEe.7209$Qi4.922303@news20.bellglobal.com, >> OK, since you want to be contrary, name the airlines and aircraft that >> use no pilot input from ramp to ramp. >> > Most any airline that has flown the Lockheed L-1011 over the past 30 years > (first plane designed to taxi,take-off, fly and land by itself. There was never one designed to taxi and take off by itself. ej On 7/22/05 7:59 PM, in article 1122055156.335133.131960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, >> You don't know much about flying aircraft nor the systems that control them >> either do you???? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > E.P. Thy will fly and land mostly by themselves, but someone has to configure it and command it to do so, and someone has to be around to deal with any deviations from the plan...like looking to see if there is still a plane on the runway ahead. ej > You don't know much about flying aircraft nor the systems that control them > either do you???? Look at Xeton's other posts; it's obvious Xeton doesn't know anything. Here's a sample if you're interested: -- Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend (Xeton2001@yahoo.com)'s words of wisdom, love, and respect (spelling and grammatical errors left intact) the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. I get RESPECT now. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en Fork the dictionary. You've got your definitions and we've got ours. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.republican/msg/a74373e47d63 8020?hl=en STFU YOU HATEFILLED TROLL. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.sport.golf/msg/4bafc59af1481a15?hl=en Fork you, beyatch. I'm the greatest troll that ever lived!!!! I'm the world's champ at infuriating all these pschopathic car loonies. HAHAHA http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.misc/msg/8316b755126bd447 Being a troll is an honorable life. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/c795f38d501be2d8?hl=en& I wish everyone involved in this "accident" had died. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/5f4bfd6988914951?hl=en I don't care who i kill; it's just an accident. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/79da070478765cee Driving twenty year old beaters doesn't keep me up to date. Anyway it's a stupid idea. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/ff331395cfc7b81b?hl=en Screw driver training and courtesy. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/d4aaae4439d8c383 Hey dood. I've been a US senator since 98! You mean you didn't know that??? http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.republican/msg/2f1dd067aa0af690 I never voted in my life, you lying whore. All elections are rigged. The globalists rigged this one by paying kerry not to attack bush. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.republican/msg/87a31e73cec1db38 It's all about money. Most organ transplants are unnecessary but doctors make a fortune off them so we have them. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.republican/msg/19e5ff027e51 bd5a?hl=en That "microphone" could have been filled with battery acid. Cruise should have pulled a knife and slit the guy's guts out. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.true-crime/msg/84af48b0cba14e15?hl=en Put AEOS on the list too. It came out with great earnings and guidance today and yet went down 7% on very heavy volume. When a stock sells off on good news, it's going much lower. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.invest.stocks/msg/1a9e462f5ff431de?hl=en Of course he does. With a name like roger, you know he's a pervert. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/38c4ddd6a5640c4a?hl=en What is the P&G logo?. I just went to their WS and didn't see any. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/9acb6a6cd49d23aa?hl=en Hey stupid. I told you the other day to stop using the phrase "conspiracy theorist". We're gover-media skeptics. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.republican/msg/402c7cb69523 57e9?hl=en There's not a shred of evidence that the jerries murdered anything close to 7 million jooz. Another monstrous lie just like the 9-11 official story. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.republican/msg/3650866dc7ecbadc All his amnesty talk puzzled me because most conservatives are hatefilled racists and don't want the greaseballs in this country. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.republican/msg/172c99cba6ba cc3c?hl=en You're crazy. There will be a draft. Bush is gonna stage another 9-11 type event and then say we have no choice but to go to war against every muslim nation. And democrats will say nothing. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/b4a8ea8427fdf968 You are an ignoramus. 9-11 was an inside job. That's for sure. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/d4b6e83b246dae5 e?hl=en The issue is the psychopath doing 60 mph OVER THE LIMIT!!!!!!!!. This guy is a murderer and i want him locked up anyway they can do it. Three cheers for the cops. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=780ea958.0411162236.1a4d23a5%40posting.goog le.com Market economy???? HAHAHAHA. Prices are whatever the monopolists want to charge. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/23c9a9e267ecc08 f?hl=en If you speed loons would just slow down we wouldn't have a problem. drive them until the holes get too big for that tire-in-a-can stuff to work. Then do what I do and go to pep boys and get a set of used retreads for $50 and repeat. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/dbe7ec33863c0fc4?hl=en The Federal Reserve is not a branch of the govt; it's a group of private banks and borrowing from them means the taxpayers have to pay the interest to the banks. This has been going on for nearly a hundred years and it's just stealing from the public and giving to the bankers. JUST PRINT THE DAMN MONEY. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/f15b1f7d7ea0dfe2 I'm not talking about increasing the money supply; just replacing borrowed money with printed money. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/760bbaea47e5f5f9 I know what you mean, dood. I did 5 years in the can myself for beating the crap out of a half-dozen faggot gun loonies i caught raping a collie and I couldn't handle the food either. Goddam beets with every meal. Ended up eating nothing but cans of tuna i bought at the commy. http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&edition=us&selm=780e a958.0411242021.7b529c17%40posting.google.com I don't think knife bans will ever happen, since knives are so damn easy to make. I remember when i was in prison for beating up a dozen gun loonies and we used to melt down a thousand or so aspirin tablets into a thick goo and then let it harden into a knife shape which we sharpened against the concrete floor. Anybody can make a knife anywhere out of anything. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.rush-limbaugh/msg/018c5bbd64dd19ac GODDAMMIT - STOP SENDING MESSAGES TO MORE THAN FIVE GROUPS Google won't allow more than five. It's not my job to delete excessive group listings but i seem to spend half my life doing that. OBEY THE RULES, YOU BUTTHOLES!!!! http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/c3d2661d3c6734ed I am not paid to delete the excessive newsgroups you clowns are posting to. Obey the rules or GTF out of here!!!! http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/f5c7a53c81f28cdf Tires don't blow out anymore. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/9a619fee7f463fc2 LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/b9727d351b4be64a Bush is dictator and that means he has to take the blame for everything. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/a2d35f67fd7b6003 Has he killed as many people as Laura Bush? http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.flame.niggers/msg/c2ff1fca08982a38 You don't know what you're talking about, dood. AIDS is an american bioweapon developed by americans so that blacks would be esp susceptible to it. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.sport.baseball/msg/cd9d112311697712 She knows it won't matter. Blake is white so the media will insist on a not guilty verdict. :http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.true-crime/msg/59c74805c56a5747 YOu stupid lying shithead. All bush has accomplished in AFG is to make it the world's leading heroin supplier. And BTW it wasn't a war. It was a massacre against a defenseless nation that never did anything to us. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.bush/msg/29a86842abe0d9d6 She's just damn lucky the press is owned by the GOP and doesn't crucify her for vehicular manslaughter like they've done to ted kennedy for 35 years. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/msg/cac630fd8aec9a63 I'm saying that bush obviously doesn't want to catch OBL. Not now that the election is over, anyway. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.republican/msg/46a00a246987524f You're crazy, dood. Google is a super rw org and they censor liberals. RW posters here get away with everything while libs have to be choir boys. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/msg/ca35950242741f13 That's why so many legal scholars think republicans should be banned from juries. Anyone who'd vote for a man who lied us into war is too dumb to sit on a jury. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.true-crime/msg/4dc8560247663014 Wouldn't have mattered if hitty had one. He took his orders from the same organization that roosevelt did and bush does today. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.republican/msg/cd58ee450b438b19 You can't even lie any good. No where in the country are cops issued crown victorias. http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&edition=us&selm=780e a958.0410112125.4b572994%40posting.google.com i'm sure jeffrey dahmer also objects to big daddy govt telling him he can't kill people anymore. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1665104637d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=o ff&edition=us&selm=780ea958.0410311919.5f4893f4%40posting.google.com At first i thought the tars had been slashed but no, the tars were fine http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&edition=us&selm=780e a958.0410311926.d89b941%40posting.google.com I hate cell phone drivers but at least this gal had the sense to drive slowly while yakking. http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&edition=us&selm=780e a958.0411231910.47c6ceb7%40posting.google.com Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5 years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open stretch could be 25, i thought. Turns out the cop was right. No complaints from me then. I should have known the law. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.autos/msg/b140009050c624a9 http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/hornsey/515/Xeton2001IsAMoron.html --- ( the following contains part of one of Judy's posts, which would not otherwise be available due to Judy's use of the X-No-Archive bit) >>>Of course, they're anti-safety devices!!! Why would anyone think >>>otherwise, loonball???. I wish you'd get off this board - you make us [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's my real name and i'm proud of it. It's pronounced diarrhrea. > Got it? So many loons in school made fun of me!!! http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/36b69ad3f5e8013a?hl=en ( the following contains part of one of Judy's posts, which would not otherwise be available due to Judy's use of the X-No-Archive bit) > That's the way it should be. In fact even having a RD in your car >should result in mandatory and permanent loss of DL. Why do you need a >device whose only function is to help you commit a crime that murders >thousands of americans a year. URAPSYCHOPATH http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/56c432d3f6f9a6fe?dmode =source&hl=en Straw man???? If you saw some black guy on crack with a gun, you'd go ballistic. But alkies with guns is ok with you cause alcohol is YOUR drug. URA STUPID ILLOGICAL HYPOCRITE. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/c59a4f089df6ecfa?hl=en We don't need safer cars and roads. The incredible highway carnage is entirely due to reckless drivers like you. URAMURDERER. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/3352db7c732fd7f1?hl=en HUH??? The cops plant the gun on him and you still say he deserved 55 years. URAPSYCHO http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.republican/msg/ac09b1777ac5 a5ce?hl=en > You don't know much about flying aircraft nor the systems that control them > either do you???? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (takes about 40 seconds) its push in way points (or pre-loaded FMS flight > database) So, what happens when the FMC is misprogrammed ? It's led to many deaths btw. > and the plane will do the rest. As for taxiing, its a piece of > piss easier then driving a car. I've never heard of auto-taxi ! Does it take them to the gate and set the parking brake too ? You're at some considerable risk during take-off and landing due to the possibility of collision with another aircraft. The risk is probably a lot higher than during flight in fact. Never mind the fact that the crew has to be alert in the event of an in-flight emergency. Computers can't handle that you know. Graham On 7/22/05 7:30 PM, in article o4aEe.10067$je2.1053487@news20.bellglobal.com, "Snow" <snowbal@sympatico.ca> wrote: > Certain planes and majority of all North American airports have systems that > allow the planes to take-off, fly and land themselves. They cannot take off by themselves. They have to be steered fown the center of the runway. After that, if the auto pilot is correctly programmed (which takes a clear head) and activated in the right sequence, it will fly and land itself. But what if something goes wrong? Bad weather, engine failure, major flight control systems failure like on the United DC-10 which crashed at Sioux City Iowa. Under that scenario, I'll bet you would have loved having drunken pilots. The plane had no way to control its movable flight controls, meaning the Ailerons and Rudder and elevator. This means they had only 1 method to go up, down, left or right, and that was by using differential thrust from the right and left engines. Ease off on the right engine, the plane turns right, ease off on the left engine, the plane turns left. Ease off on them both the plane descends, while increasing both (or all three in this plane) of the throttles makes the plane go up. This flight crew got their uncontrollable airplane to an airport, and placed it on the ground on its wheels. During the roll out the plane went into a ditch and the wings were torn off. But the sober pilots saved themselves and more than half of the passengers during an emergency FOR WHICH THERE HAD BEEN NO PRACTIC E AND FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO EMERGENCY PROCEDURE WRITTEN UP IN THIER OPERATING MANUAL. Now, would you rather this flight crew had been drinking excessively? Same with the United 747 departing Honolulu which lost a huge section of the fuselage wall.. The plane, with incomprehensible damage was returned to the ground in Honolulu in the dark, and only a flight attendant and the passengers seated immediately next to the fuselage wall which had been lost. Now, would you rather this flight crew had been drinking excessively? Same question for the Aloha Airlines aircraft which lost the front and top half of its fuselage in flight, yet was put on the ground by its flight crew. I believe nobody died. Now, would you rather this flight crew had been drinking excessively? ej > They cannot take off by themselves. They have to be steered fown the > center > of the runway. Steering shuts off once the nose gear has left the ground, then the steering is done completely by flight controls, which in the case of some aircraft can be done by the flight director Snow... On 7/23/05 2:54 PM, in article R7rEe.7447$Qi4.991265@news20.bellglobal.com, > Steering shuts off once the nose gear has left the ground, then the steering > is done completely by flight controls, which in the case of some aircraft > can be done by the flight director Which is after rotation which occurs well down the runway. ej > On 7/23/05 2:54 PM, in article > R7rEe.7447$Qi4.991265@news20.bellglobal.com, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Which is after rotation which occurs well down the runway. NO it happens when the nose wheels are high enough off the ground, mains are still in contact with the ground at this point. Rotation is the phase at which all the wheels have ceased touching tarmac. Snow.. > > On 7/23/05 2:54 PM, in article > > R7rEe.7447$Qi4.991265@news20.bellglobal.com, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > still in contact with the ground at this point. Rotation is the phase at > which all the wheels have ceased touching tarmac. NO ! Rotation is the point at which the column ( or sidestick ) is pulled back. The nose gear will then leave the ground followed by the main gear. At the time when 'rotate' is called all the wheels are still on the ground. You don't know much do you ? Graham On 7/24/05 1:45 AM, in article 42E2D6A1.65187C42@hotmail.com, "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> On 7/23/05 2:54 PM, in article >>> R7rEe.7447$Qi4.991265@news20.bellglobal.com, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Graham No, he knows enough to be dangerous. ej > No, he knows enough to be dangerous. Know more then you... your a what???? desk jockey some place? who gets told info by his brother, who also is a desk jockey? Snow... On 7/24/05 6:11 PM, in article A6PEe.318$q23.53185@news20.bellglobal.com, >> No, he knows enough to be dangerous. > > Know more then you... your a what???? desk jockey some place? who gets > told info by his brother, who also is a desk jockey? No, my father and brother are pilots. My father is a retired air force and airline pilot of about 40,000 hours and two overseas tours and 15 years of international commercial flying as a Captain for American Airlines. He flew the T-33, the F84, the F 86, the B-26, the F-100, the F-101, the F-4, and the C-131 for the US air Force and the DC-6, Lockheed Elektra, the 707, the 747, the DC-10, the 727 and the 767 for American Airlines. He was also a private flight instructor and ferry pilot for new aircraft before joining the Aviation Cadet program. My brother trained in the T-33 and T-38 and went on to fly several thousand hours as co-pilot and pilot-in-command of the B-52 stationed in Guam and in Louisiana. In 1991 he left the Air Force as an Academy graduate with a degree in Aeronautical Engineering and with 6 years of Air Force flight duty to take a job with American Airlines. He flew the 727 as flight engineer out of Miami to South and Central America and the Caribbean. He then moved to the right seat of the Fokker 100 and on to the right seat of the 737-800, after a stint as Flight Engineer on the DC-10 which led as planned to the pair working a number of Los Angeles Honolulu flights. My brother, having gotten an MBA while in the Air Force (advanced degrees being required to move beyond captain) earned also a law degree by taking two year-long leaves of absence and working the third year of law school. He used this degree and his experience to become first a lawyer for International Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC), the company which invented the industry of aircraft leasing and the owner of the largest commercial airline fleet in the USA, and then a marketing manager. For the past several years, ending in 2004, he worked (mostly) weekends in the cockpit and weekdays in the office, leasing commercial aircraft, like the B-777, to the likes of KLM, Royal Dutch Airlines. ILFC is also a launch customer for the airbus 380, and my brother's boss, Steven Udvar-Hazi was alongside the president's of France, Spain, and Great Britain as the aircraft was unveiled this year. Me, I am too ill with a muscle and nerve disease to be a pilot, but I grew up an air force and airline brat, listening to all the conversations and reading the industry magazines like aviation week and Air Transport World. But I, too, work in the business. I have worked in the marketing department of KLM where I wrote two books which were circulated to all KLM establishments world wide concerning their revenue or "yield," management system of price and inventory control. This book was a central controlling document within KLM for ten years, or so I was told in 2003 by Onno van den Brink, now CEO of Transavia, but then the revenue manager of the North Atlantic revenue group who gave me the assignment. Revenue group North Atlantic was also the first place where Northwest Airlines and KLM physically integrated yield, price and capacity management by locating Northwest employees in Amsterdam and managing yield for all North Atlantic Traffic on both airlines from there. This was going on at the time I was there and the consequences there from had to be included in my book. I now work for Arke-Fly, the Dutch based airline of TUI, the largest tour operator in the world. Arkefly is a new airline built from the ashes of several bankrupt carriers. Also, my foreign exchange as a young man, which continues to this day, was to Germany with the family of a Lufthansa pilot who later moved to the charter-airline daughter company of Lufthansa, Condor,in order to fly in the left seat. He retired 5 years after my father, in 2000. Lastly, I have spent considerable time using versions 5.x 6.x, 7.x, and 8.x of the flight simulator X-plane, with which one may, from version 6.3 onward accrue time toward achieving one's Air Transport Certificate. See www.x-plane.com for details. So you see, I have spent a lifetime in an around the industry,and I am well informed about these things. ej > No, my father and brother are pilots. My father is a retired air force and > airline pilot of about 40,000 hours and two overseas tours and 15 years of > international commercial flying as a Captain for American Airlines. Yes but you are a??????? desk jocky???? > Me, I am too ill with a muscle and nerve disease to be a pilot, but I grew > up an air force and airline brat, listening to all the conversations and > reading the industry magazines like aviation week and Air Transport > World. Oh your a desk jocky who reads magazines and works BEHIND a DESK in a marketing deppartment. > But I, too, work in the business. I have worked in the marketing > department [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the > left seat. Wow now you even give us a line like that... I would have gone with the "my cousin" instead of "my foreign exchange " just to look smarter. > Lastly, I have spent considerable time using versions 5.x 6.x, 7.x, and > 8.x > of the flight simulator X-plane, with which one may, from version 6.3 > onward > accrue time toward achieving one's Air Transport Certificate. Oooooo playing on flight sim certainly gives you lots of knowledge into how the systems and planes operate, yup.. if it is on going to happen on flight sim then it wont happen.... > So you see, I have spent a lifetime in an around the industry,and I am > well > informed about these things. No you spend a lot time discussing things you have no or little knowledge of with you pilot family (and friends), taking on excepts of those conversations, you read magazines that have topics and stories that are simplified to the non industry professional can understand something about how a plane may work. By you logic then I have over 100 years of industry knowledge and involvement. Snow... On 7/25/05 8:45 PM, in article ltaFe.1358$q23.324760@news20.bellglobal.com, > Wow now you even give us a line like that... I would have gone with the "my > cousin" instead of "my foreign exchange " just to look smarter. My foreign exchange family had me staying in my second day iin Europe, with Juergen Weber, the Chairman of Lufthansa. I'm sorry I'm Ill and can't fly for you. But that does -not- mean that through the resources available to me, I can consult the chief of maintenance at Akefly by walking into his office. Or last conversation had to do with the rented cowling on the borrowed engine we had or our leased, Pratt-powered 767. Gawd you'd think pilots are the only ones with this info. ej On 7/25/05 8:45 PM, in article ltaFe.1358$q23.324760@news20.bellglobal.com, >> Lastly, I have spent considerable time using versions 5.x 6.x, 7.x, and >> 8.x [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the systems and planes operate, yup.. if it is on going to happen on flight > sim then it wont happen.... X-plane is not a game. Its applied physics. In any case it is not me who counts it toward ATP Certificates, but the FAA. I am helping the manager of training at Arkefly to get the same certifications at the RLD (Rijksluchtvaartdienst) or Dutch FAA, so that we can save overall simulator costs. ej I know lots of guys (and gals) who fly flight sims and x-plane and other flight sim stuff, Hell I know the guy who fixes the sims airlines use, they can fly, every single one of them can fly, but they have no idea what systems do what (other then the rudimentary ones, i.e. hydraulics = aileron & rudder, pneumatics = packs, eng start, anti-ice etc.) Unlike you they realize that just because they can fly (I believe one girl has just receive her twin rating) on the "games" or real simulators they don't know how things work and how complex the systems are. Snow... On 7/26/05 3:30 AM, in article 3pgFe.1066$d02.305021@news20.bellglobal.com, > I know lots of guys (and gals) who fly flight sims and x-plane and other > flight sim stuff, Hell I know the guy who fixes the sims airlines use, they [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Snow... You are forgetting all the other experience in and access to the industry. I was walking past F-4s and F-101's when I was 5, I was walking around the outside of DC-10's when I was 12, and now at our technical, I walk around Fokker 50s and 70s and 100s and 767-300s. I have access to all the mechanics and execs. Sorry I am too ill to fly. ej On 7/25/05 8:45 PM, in article ltaFe.1358$q23.324760@news20.bellglobal.com, > if it is on going to happen on flight > sim then it wont happen.... Actually, this sim is accurate to a T, and has built in instructors controls which will fail a system at command and random , and at predetermined time intervals. I recommend you check it out...www.x-plane.com. If you can do it on x-plane, you can very likely do it in the real thing. I dare you. ej dude I can already do everything on the real ones except take-off. Snow... > On 7/25/05 8:45 PM, in article > ltaFe.1358$q23.324760@news20.bellglobal.com, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > ej On 7/26/05 3:25 AM, in article LkgFe.1063$d02.304019@news20.bellglobal.com, > dude I can already do everything on the real ones except take-off. Why not then, hmmmmmmm. That seams the only thing that counts. ej so what disengages the nosewheel steering???? and what centres the gear? Snow... On 7/24/05 6:10 PM, in article z5PEe.317$q23.53005@news20.bellglobal.com, > so what disengages the nosewheel steering???? and what centres the gear? > > Snow... The nothing disengages it. Its travel freedom left to right is severely restricted after about 25 knots, otherwise it would be possible to break the front wheels off by steering too far to the right or left. I believe it is a mechanical process controlled by the speed in RPM of the wheel. ej SURVEY SAYS?? BIZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT wrong again desk jockey.. Nosewheel steering is disconnected when the throttles are advanced above a certain percentage, most aircraft have this percentage at about 90%, this allows vibration problems and other steering/gear related problems to be diagnosed by maintenance. When an aircraft is on the take off run, the throttles are advanced to 100 (sometimes further) in one motion, so the steering lockout is almost immediate. The nose gear centres its self by two methods, the first is a very simple cantering cam within the gear leg, the second (does not exists on all planes) is a hydraulic cantering, which tied into the WOW switches. Snow... > On 7/24/05 6:10 PM, in article z5PEe.317$q23.53005@news20.bellglobal.com, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > wheel. > ej > Nosewheel steering is disconnected when the throttles are advanced above a > certain percentage, most aircraft have this percentage at about 90%, this > allows vibration problems and other steering/gear related problems to be > diagnosed by maintenance. should also state that there are other reasons for steering below 90%, like highspeed taxi's and expedited moves on the ground. Snow.. On 7/25/05 8:53 PM, in article 3BaFe.1362$q23.326232@news20.bellglobal.com, > Nosewheel steering is disconnected when the throttles are advanced above a > certain percentage, most aircraft have this percentage at about 90%, Bzzzzzzzt wrong. Nosewheel steering is restricted above a certain speed. It is never disconnected. ej Dude it disconnects at a throttle setting of a predetermined amount (usually 95-100%) it also disconnects if air speed reaches a certain speed. When the gears up and locked the nose wheel doesn't turn ya know... Snow... > On 7/25/05 8:53 PM, in article > 3BaFe.1362$q23.326232@news20.bellglobal.com, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > ej On 7/26/05 3:33 AM, in article FrgFe.1072$d02.305692@news20.bellglobal.com, > Dude it disconnects at a throttle setting of a predetermined amount (usually > 95-100%) it also disconnects if air speed reaches a certain speed. When > the gears up and locked the nose wheel doesn't turn ya know... Umm these are power levels seldom used, as it decreases the lifespan of the engines. Also, reduced power take offs are the industry norm to save fuel. The nose wheel steering range of travel is restricted after about 30 kt/h in order to keep from breaking it off. ej > On 7/26/05 3:33 AM, in article FrgFe.1072$d02.305692@news20.bellglobal.com, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > ej Interesting he didn't mention EPR. Graham On 7/24/05 1:06 AM, in article A5AEe.12675$je2.1313971@news20.bellglobal.com, "Snow" <snowbal@sympatico.ca> wrote: >> Which is after rotation which occurs well down the runway. > > NO it happens when the nose wheels are high enough off the ground, mains are > still in contact with the ground at this point. Rotation is the phase at > which all the wheels have ceased touching tarmac. The steering works like this. It is reduced in the amount the nose wheel will turn after a certain speed. The nose wheel is firmly planted on the ground until wing angle rotation, as wing rotation is what changes the pitch of the aircraft, causing the aircraft to begin flying. After rotation there is so little time left on the ground that steering with the nose wheel becomes. The best example of this is an MD-80, which has the highest wheel loading on the nose wheel of any aircraft, which means that the nose wheel remains firmly on the ground until rotation. ej > The steering works like this. It is reduced in the amount the nose wheel > will turn after a certain speed. > The nose wheel is firmly planted on the ground until wing angle rotation, > as > wing rotation is what changes the pitch of the aircraft, Close its the elevator that actually rotates the plane,, wings provide the lift. > aircraft to begin flying. After rotation there is so little time left on > the > ground that steering with the nose wheel becomes. becomes what???? > The best example of this is an MD-80, which has the highest wheel loading > on > the nose wheel of any aircraft, which means that the nose wheel remains > firmly on the ground until rotation. the whole rotation period is the time the nose lifts from the ground till the mains are off. once the nose lifts off the ground (even if just from pure lift and speed with no elevator input) its still the start of rotation. ROTATION= the transition between take-off roll and flight. - that's taken write from an FAA training book. Snow... > > The steering works like this. It is reduced in the amount the nose wheel > > will turn after a certain speed. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > ROTATION= the transition between take-off roll and flight. - that's > taken write from an FAA training book. That's absolutely fine. It isn't however what you previously posted. Graham On 7/25/05 4:02 AM, in article 42E44839.B1749B77@hotmail.com, "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> aircraft to begin flying. After rotation there is so little time left on >>> the >>> ground that steering with the nose wheel becomes. >> >> becomes what???? Sorry, pooh, but I can't find the original post. The answer to becomes what is irrelevant, as in,"... steering with the nose wheel becomes irrelevant, as the plane is about to leave the ground,making staying on the runway a non issue. You don't have to fly down the runway straight as you climb out, and if there is a sufficient cross wind, you won't. ej > The steering works like this. It is reduced in the amount the nose > wheel will turn after a certain speed. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > little time left on the ground that steering with the nose wheel > becomes. Junkie Johnson f.cked up his grammar again, leading one to believe that the dope kicked in after the word "becomes". SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time On 7/24/05 7:37 PM, in article Xns969D6C107EB09retsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6, "Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote: >> The steering works like this. It is reduced in the amount the nose >> wheel will turn after a certain speed. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Junkie Johnson f.cked up his grammar again, leading one to believe that the > dope kicked in after the word "becomes". So I forgot the word irrelevant. f.ck you. ej > On 7/24/05 7:37 PM, in article > Xns969D6C107EB09retsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6, "Dave Lister" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > So I forgot the word irrelevant. Your credibility is all shot to sh.t now, Junkie. > f.ck you. Poor junkie, getting back what he so freely gave. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time I wonder what magazine or family member he called to get that snappy answer??? Snow... >> On 7/24/05 7:37 PM, in article >> Xns969D6C107EB09retsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6, "Dave Lister" [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Poor junkie, getting back what he so freely gave. On 7/25/05 8:55 PM, in article WCaFe.1363$q23.326426@news20.bellglobal.com, > I wonder what magazine or family member he called to get that snappy > answer??? I did not need to call one, a.shole. I don't care if you believe me. I have spent a lifetime in the business,and I know what I am talking about. I will continue to correct whatever foolishness you post which is incorrect, but not for your sake. Ej PS the senior pilots who do the instruction in the sims, aren't pilots usually either, as their ticket has been pulled due to age. ej >> I wonder what magazine or family member he called to get that snappy >> answer??? > I did not need to call one, a.shole. Nice one ... > I don't care if you believe me. good cause I don't, seems not many in the industry care much for you (yes I know people too) > I have spent a lifetime in the business,and I know what I am talking > about. No your counting your daddy and drug addicted brother ... oops sorry the non addicted brother experiance, plus your desk jockey time. > PS the senior pilots who do the instruction in the sims, aren't pilots > usually either, as their ticket has been pulled due to age. Maybe in your country, here the instructor pilots and sim instructors must have their license and be current on their training and ratings. Snow... On 7/26/05 3:37 AM, in article rvgFe.1077$d02.306893@news20.bellglobal.com, >>> I wonder what magazine or family member he called to get that snappy >>> answer??? >> I did not need to call one, a.shole. > > Nice one ... I didn't. What more do you want me to say? If I had, you would have gotten a far more detailed description. ej On 7/26/05 3:37 AM, in article rvgFe.1077$d02.306893@news20.bellglobal.com, >> I don't care if you believe me. > > good cause I don't, seems not many in the industry care much for you (yes I > know people too) Oh, who? Who do you know in the industry that knows me? Did you call someone to find out? Ohhhh. I'm in trouble now. ej On 7/26/05 3:37 AM, in article rvgFe.1077$d02.306893@news20.bellglobal.com, > I have spent a lifetime in the business,and I know what I am talking >> about. > > No your counting your daddy and drug addicted brother ... oops sorry the non > addicted brother experiance, plus your desk jockey time. No IO a counting a life time of interest and exposure. You need to chillout when you talk about my brothers? Yes, one of them has an alcohol problem. The other is a USAFA grad('85) with a degree in aeronautical engineering, an MBA from Louisiana Tech, and a JD from UCLA Law School. He is also a professional commercial airline pilot with American Airlines, most recently assigned to the 737-800 out of Los Angeles, the HQ of ILFC, where he is a marketing manager. I'm sorry if this makes you angry. Ej P.S. According to him, I'd have made the better pilot. On 7/26/05 3:37 AM, in article rvgFe.1077$d02.306893@news20.bellglobal.com, > PS the senior pilots who do the instruction in the sims, aren't pilots >> usually either, as their ticket has been pulled due to age. > > Maybe in your country, here the instructor pilots and sim instructors must > have their license and be current on their training and ratings. Sorry, but you are wrong. One of the ways senior captains may continue working is to assume an instructor's role. Many Pan-Am pilots who came to United via its partial take over lost a substantial portion of their retirements. Many of these pan-Am pilots are friends and Air Force colleagues of my father. One of the ways they were able to make up some of the lost money was to assume an instructor's role after age 60. They can also move to the third seat of planes which have them and fill the F/E role as a professional F/E, as there is no age 60 rule for flight engineers. Ej P.S. The rules are usually made in the usa and other countries follow suit because they have to in order to maintain landing rights in the usa. "> Bad weather, engine failure, major flight control systems failure like on > the United DC-10 which crashed at Sioux City Iowa. Different breed of airplane from the one the drunk pilots were flying, a DC10 uses mechanical fuel guages on the F/E's panel. A bus doesn't. > Under that scenario, I'll bet you would have loved having drunken pilots. I don't believe I ever once said I wanted or thought these pilots were unjustly treated....every Airtransport Authority in the world has regs on when a pilot must be sober. > But the sober pilots saved themselves and more than half of the passengers > during an emergency FOR WHICH THERE HAD BEEN NO PRACTIC E AND FOR WHICH > THERE WAS NO EMERGENCY PROCEDURE WRITTEN UP IN THIER OPERATING MANUAL. Yep so have many other pilots, Air Canada had a 767 glide for 30 mins (maybe longer) into Gimli when the plane ran out of fuel, airplane is still flying today. AirTransat did a similar thing gliding a 330 into the Azores when it ran out of fuel, plane is still flying today... Neither one of these was written into the manuals either. Now would I have wanted drunk pilots for these, nope, but I never said the pilots of the America West 319 weren't drunk (I just never said they were). > "> Bad weather, engine failure, major flight control systems failure like on > > the United DC-10 which crashed at Sioux City Iowa. > > Different breed of airplane from the one the drunk pilots were flying, a > DC10 uses mechanical fuel guages on the F/E's panel. A bus doesn't. WTF has that got to do with anything ? The 'Sioux City' DC-10 didn't have fuel problems btw, it had total hydraulics loss following a rather dramatic engine failure. Graham Sort of my point, someone decided to bring in old airplanes and quote things that relate to mechanical failures of major structures, I brought in the fuel to show other examples. Snow... >> "> Bad weather, engine failure, major flight control systems failure like >> on [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Graham > Sort of my point, someone decided to bring in old airplanes and quote things > that relate to mechanical failures of major structures, I brought in the > fuel to show other examples. Well..... come to that, a 'bus - at least the modern ones - doesn't have an F/E's panel either ! Graham On 7/23/05 6:00 PM, in article BStEe.8232$Qi4.1015862@news20.bellglobal.com, > Sort of my point, someone decided to bring in old airplanes and quote things > that relate to mechanical failures of major structures, I brought in the > fuel to show other examples. > > Snow... Um the discussion at that point was about the ability of drunk pilots to handle emergencies. I gave an example of 3 in flight emergencies which auto ppilots would be unable to cope with. Make the DC-10 an MD-11 and you are speaking of the same type of control system as in the airbus. And the a 380, weighing 1/3 more than a 747-400 will likely present a new emergency when the first one crashes. ej > On 7/23/05 6:00 PM, in article BStEe.8232$Qi4.1015862@news20.bellglobal.com, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > And the a 380, weighing 1/3 more than a 747-400 will likely present a new > emergency when the first one crashes. Hopefully that will be a long, long time off. Some Airbus models have had nil fatal accidents since introduction. http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/a340.htm http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/a330.htm Graham On 7/25/05 5:40 PM, in article 42E507D6.FA049D54@hotmail.com, "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: >> And the a 380, weighing 1/3 more than a 747-400 will likely present a new >> emergency when the first one crashes. > > Hopefully that will be a long, long time off. Amen. May it perform like Concorde, with 30 years and only 1 crash. I still regard it as having a perfect safety record, as the cause of that crash did not have to do with either pilot error or design flaw. IMHO, and frankly since I never really was hot for that plane (Paris to New York for an 8 year old from the intermountain west wasn't too interesting,) I am not biased. ej "> May it perform like Concorde, with 30 years and only 1 crash. I still regard > it as having a perfect safety record, as the cause of that crash did not > have to do with either pilot error or design flaw. IMHO, and frankly since > I > never really was hot for that plane (Paris to New York for an 8 year old > from the intermountain west wasn't too interesting,) I am not biased. Did the plane have an accident???? did it kill people??? doesn't mater if it was mechanical or pilot error it still crashed, has a blemish its safety record. Snow... > "> May it perform like Concorde, with 30 years and only 1 crash. I still > regard [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > it was mechanical or pilot error it still crashed, has a blemish its safety > record. A crash resulting from an inherent design defect is far more serious. By your approach, an accident such as a mid-air collision would tarnish the aircraft's reputation, yet it's clear that mid-airs are nothing to do with the design of any aircraft. Graham On 7/25/05 9:33 PM, in article _9bFe.1496$q23.330530@news20.bellglobal.com, > Did the plane have an accident???? Yes. What caused it? Did it have anything intrinsically to do with the concord? Would another plane have crashed if it had taken off after the DC-10 which lost the part which caused the tire to blow out? > did it kill people??? Not many. > doesn't mater if > it was mechanical or pilot error it still crashed, has a blemish its safety > record. Not if you really examine the cause of the crash. ej > > doesn't mater if > > it was mechanical or pilot error it still crashed, has a blemish its safety > > record. > > Not if you really examine the cause of the crash. If you take a look at the condition of the Continental DC-10 ? cowl that dropped the 'debris' you'll probably have kittens. There are pics online. The part shouldn't even have been made of titanium. Stainless steel is recommended IIRC. It looked like a real 'bodge job'. Graham I found all kinds of sites with info but none showing pictures of the wearstrip. Snow... >> > doesn't mater if >> > it was mechanical or pilot error it still crashed, has a blemish its [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Graham > I found all kinds of sites with info but none showing pictures of the > wearstrip. If you download the pdf I just gave a link to from the French 'BEA' accident investigators you'll see. The pics are embedded. http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/2000/f-sc000725a/pdf/f-sc000725a.pdf Go to page 102 - 108. The report is actually full of interesting technical issues. Graham you and PB must smoke the same dope as your addicted brother... The Concorde had a crash... it has a blemish on its service record.. get over it. Would another aircraft have suffered the same fate by running over debris???? that's hard to say, I've tire caps come off on the take-off roll and get sucked into the engine, no crash, but a lot of flame. I've also seen planes run over bits from an blown apu and 3 out of 4 wheels on a boggie go flat during the take off roll, aborted the take off due lack of airspeed. First plane was a 767 the second was a 747. So its hard to say if another type would have suffered the same fate. Snow... > On 7/25/05 9:33 PM, in article > _9bFe.1496$q23.330530@news20.bellglobal.com, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > ej > you and PB must smoke the same dope as your addicted brother... > The Concorde had a crash... it has a blemish on its service record.. get [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > airspeed. First plane was a 767 the second was a 747. So its hard to say > if another type would have suffered the same fate. Well.... it's pretty grand of you to indeed speculate whether another aircraft would have suffered the same fate. Concorde's takeoff speed - that's rotation don't forget ! is very high. In the Paris incident because of certain events, rotation was made at 185 knots instrument air speed IIRC. Technically, Vr should have been around 200 kts. It's a very complex accident. May I recommend you read the following... http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/2000/f-sc000725a/pdf/f-sc000725a.pdf Graham On 7/26/05 3:44 AM, in article UBgFe.1078$d02.309315@news20.bellglobal.com, > you and PB must smoke the same dope as your addicted brother.. Hew is sober now, a.shole. > On 7/26/05 3:44 AM, in article > UBgFe.1078$d02.309315@news20.bellglobal.com, "Snow" > <snowbal@sympatico.ca> wrote: > >> you and PB must smoke the same dope as your addicted brother.. > Hew is sober now, a.shole. So he is cured and can drink again, JJ? SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time On 7/26/05 6:48 PM, in article Xns969F63D1D4E6Aretsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6, "Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/26/05 3:44 AM, in article >> UBgFe.1078$d02.309315@news20.bellglobal.com, "Snow" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So he is cured and can drink again, EJ? Did I ever say that? No, he should leave Nevada as well. ej Eric Johnson <erj66@xs4all.nl> wrote in news:BF0C3964.8DEA3%erj66 @xs4all.nl: > On 7/26/05 6:48 PM, in article > Xns969F63D1D4E6Aretsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6, "Dave Lister" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > No, he should leave Nevada as well. Some people here (Shithead for example) are claiming a cure, not that I've heard you say anything against that. SignatureRepublican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time On 7/26/05 7:38 PM, in article Xns969F6C57D33D7retsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6, "Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote: > Eric Johnson <erj66@xs4all.nl> wrote in news:BF0C3964.8DEA3%erj66 > @xs4all.nl: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Some people here (Shithead for example) are claiming a cure, not that I've > heard you say anything against that. Haven't seen it. ej On 7/26/05 3:44 AM, in article UBgFe.1078$d02.309315@news20.bellglobal.com, > The Concorde had a crash... it has a blemish on its service record.. get > over it. and my opinion about the concorde's record will-not- go in the history book, so f.ck off already with your anger. ejk On 7/23/05 3:03 PM, in article 5grEe.7457$Qi4.991806@news20.bellglobal.com, > Different breed of airplane from the one the drunk pilots were flying, a > DC10 uses mechanical fuel guages on the F/E's panel. A bus doesn't. And this has exactly what to do with the subjects at hand. ej On 7/23/05 3:03 PM, in article 5grEe.7457$Qi4.991806@news20.bellglobal.com, > Yep so have many other pilots, Air Canada had a 767 glide for 30 mins (maybe > longer) into Gimli when the plane ran out of fuel, airplane is still flying > today. AirTransat did a similar thing gliding a 330 into the Azores when it > ran out of fuel, plane is still flying today... Neither one of these was > written into the manuals either. The Azores aircraft was controllable, and fuel outs and double engine failure, however rare that is, are certainly written up as procedures and practiced for in the sims. When did I speak of aircraft being taken from service? ej On 7/22/05 7:30 PM, in article o4aEe.10067$je2.1053487@news20.bellglobal.com, "Snow" <snowbal@sympatico.ca> wrote: > Some even have the > equipment to allow the plane to taxi. PROOF, PLEASE. Taxiing is most often at the instruction of ground control. Computers don't take verbal commands well. You seem to be making the point that pilots, let alone sober ones, aren't really necessary. This is simply not true. ej "> You seem to be making the point that pilots, let alone sober ones, aren't > really necessary. > > This is simply not true. Pilots are redundant, pilots aren't needed for 99.99% of the commercials flying that's done, they are only there for 2 reasons. 1) try to take control in an emergency and 2) possibly be found at fault once an emergency takes place. Before you spout off... I know many commercial pilots and they make the same claims. Snow... On 7/23/05 3:05 PM, in article SirEe.7458$Qi4.992626@news20.bellglobal.com, > "> You seem to be making the point that pilots, let alone sober ones, aren't >> really necessary. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Before you spout off... I know many commercial pilots and they make the same > claims. And my brother leases aircraft to major airlines at the largest company and first company to do this. Pilots are simply -not- redundant because the avionics are not 100% reliable, emergencies and unforeseen happen frequently, and -most- importantly, the -customers- are not ready to get on planes without pilots, largely because they know the avionics are not 100% reliable, emergencies and unforeseen happen frequently because in their experience, nothing is 100% reliable. There are just too many variables outside of the flight controls themselves which are the planes are not capable of dealing with. For example, a mal-adjusted ILS, which leads the aircraft without pilots to land on the grass strip between the runway and the taxiway. Further, ground behavior cannot be predicted. The worst passenger aircraft ever, the Pan Am 747 KLM 747 collision in the canary islands happened for a number of reasons, one being the taxi ways were stuffed with planes diverted from nearby islands due to bad weather. This saw a pan am 747 land in the direction of a waiting KLM 747 at the other end of the runway in the fog. The Pan Am 747 was instructed to turn off the runway at a given taxiway, a turn which was physically impossible, so he continued to the next. Due to a "heterodyne," or two or more people transmitting on the same frequency at the same time, the Pan Am 747 was not able to tell and nobody was able to hear that he was still on the runway. The KLM captain went to take off ahead because he only heard half of of the tower's instruction to his request to be cleared for take off which unfortunately began with the word,"OK." Then the Pan Am pilot begins transmitting, "hey, we are still on the runway," which occurred at the same moment as the rest of the Tower's message to KLM telling him to wait, but beginning with, "OK." Nobody heard the Pan Am pilot's warning and the KLM pilot did not hear the critical part of the message. They are still using HF communications. Sorry, but the avionics just cannot handle such a situation, starting with the planes diverting and being parked on the taxi way. Computerized systems work because they count on certain variables being fixed values at certain points. There are just too many things in flux in today's commercial aviation for the current avionics to deal with. And my brother, a marketing manager for ILFC as well as a commercial pilot, and I just discussed the idea of remote control of aircraft as a by product of discussing 9/11 conspiracy theories. Such a system doesn't exist, meaning it isn't really possible to establish remote controlled flight (or totally automated flight) without a major new section being added to the avionics. It could -not- be done with current aircraft, which BTW are not as homogeneous as one would think, without adding major components to the avionics and flight control systems. ej > "> You seem to be making the point that pilots, let alone sober ones, aren't > > really necessary. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Before you spout off... I know many commercial pilots and they make the same > claims. That 99.99% claim is utter nonsence. You reckon the auto-pilot can talk to air traffic control too and respond accordingly ? Just a simple obvious example. There is simply so much that humans are needed to do even on a highly automated plane. Indeed in some busy airspace the modern 2 crew planes are stretching the crew pretty effectively. Graham > That 99.99% claim is utter nonsence. > > You reckon the auto-pilot can talk to air traffic control too and respond > accordingly ? Just a simple obvious example. Well that feature would certainly be easy enough to add. Hell, many cell phones can do it. -Dave On 7/24/05 3:34 AM, in article 42e2f013$1$36265$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Dave C." <noway@nohow.not> wrote: >> That 99.99% claim is utter nonsence. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well that feature would certainly be easy enough to add. Hell, many cell > phones can do it. -Dave They can understand numbers and some names, but look at how poorly IBM's ViaVoice works? Try using it behind an HF radio. In any case, data could be sent in lieu of verbal commands, but there is nothing there to receive it. ej Nothing to receive data?? Next time I'm talking Rolls Royce I'll tell them that one.. RR talks back and forth with there Trent engines all the time, they can even tweak the engines if required. If engines can use the aircraft comm freqs for air to ground data transfer then so can the rest of the plane. Snow... > On 7/24/05 3:34 AM, in article > 42e2f013$1$36265$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Dave C." [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > ej On 7/24/05 6:02 PM, in article I_OEe.312$q23.51679@news20.bellglobal.com, > Nothing to receive data?? Next time I'm talking Rolls Royce I'll tell them > that one.. RR talks back and forth with there Trent engines all the time, > they can even tweak the engines if required. If engines can use the > aircraft comm freqs for air to ground data transfer then so can the rest of > the plane. But your claim that they now can fly automatically simply by installing the avionics as planned. I am certain this technology has not been implemented. Get this...although the airlines wouldn't mind dispensing with pilots, the passengers would. The development process doesn't include things not acceptable to the passengers. Would you fly on an airplane with no one at the controls? ej > On 7/24/05 6:02 PM, in article I_OEe.312$q23.51679@news20.bellglobal.com, > But your claim that they now can fly automatically simply by installing > the > avionics as planned. > > I am certain this technology has not been implemented. I don't recall ever saying that the airlines would get rid of you family members (pilots) nor did I say that the airplane are always flown in this manor. I said "Certain planes and majority of all North American airports have systems that allow the planes to take-off, fly and land themselves. Some even have the equipment to allow the plane to taxi." As for automatic flight, its called autopilot,, you ment radio controlled (for lack of better words) Snow... On 7/25/05 9:02 PM, in article GJaFe.1369$q23.327067@news20.bellglobal.com, > I said "Certain planes and majority of all North American airports > have systems that > allow the planes to take-off, fly and land themselves. But you are not correct, as I have laid out. They cannot take off by themselves. They cannot complete a flight after take off without someone there too operate the computer. Getting to a nav point in the area of an airport it can do, but it cannot then shift itself into auto land, nor can it reconfigure itself into a landing configuration. Therefore you are simply incorrect. You don't have to believe me. But you will not get the last word. BTW how do you get information about a given thing? Not necessarily airline related,. But how do you do it? I was honest enough to come clean about how I know what I know. For some reason this is a reason to disrespect me. It is not like I don't also work in the business. But Have you ever been to ILFC? Have you met Steven Udvar-Hazi? Have you met Leslie Gonda? Leo van Van Wijk? Juergen Weber? Onno van den Brink? I have. In fact how many major executives in the airline industry do you know personally? Udvar-Hazi was on my father's last flight with the rest of my family. Gonda, a billionaire, saw to that I was treated by the neurology department at UCLA Medical center, without waiting. I helped put the roof on Juergen Weber's garden sauna in Hamburg, and I have been to Onno van den Brink's house in Baarn. I met van Wijk when I worked at KLM and he was only head of KLM Nederland, and I have my picture at the desk of his predecessor, Pieter Bouw. Do they call you for Dutch language translations and news updates which concern them? ILFC calls me. Hmmmmm. ej On 7/25/05 9:02 PM, in article GJaFe.1369$q23.327067@news20.bellglobal.com, > As for automatic flight, its called autopilot, And auto pilot is split up into a number of systems, which have to be managed. ej > On 7/25/05 9:02 PM, in article > GJaFe.1369$q23.327067@news20.bellglobal.com, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And auto pilot is split up into a number of systems, which have to be > managed. managed by the flight director computers, that can control everything from throttles to flaps to pitch and roll to reverse and gear. The plane can do it, whether its used or not is a different thing, but the plane in question 318/319/320/321 can do it. Snow... On 7/26/05 4:04 AM, in article jVgFe.1088$d02.312975@news20.bellglobal.com, > managed by the flight director computers, that can control everything from > throttles to flaps to pitch and roll to reverse and gear. > > The plane can do it, whether its used or not is a different thing, but the > plane in question 318/319/320/321 can do it. No, the plane cannot do it. If it isn't legal, the customers won't pay for it to be built in. Someone has to be there to operate the computers, raise the gear, operate the flaps and change from FMS control to ILS auto land. The overall aviation infrastructure is not set up for the type of automation you suggest. ej On 7/22/05 7:30 PM, in article o4aEe.10067$je2.1053487@news20.bellglobal.com, "Snow" <snowbal@sympatico.ca> wrote: > Not to mention, most engine starts > are a single push button operation No, they are not, and you know it. The start procedure of a 737-800, one of the most advanced cockpits, involves a number of steps./ It is in no way like turning on a car. ej ">> Not to mention, most engine starts >> are a single push button operation > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It is in no way like turning on a car. baby busses are a single switch operation, push the start switch and the engine will spool and add fuel on its own. (providing the main Batts. are on and electrical power is available) majority of the others are the same, some may have an extra switch to flip (bleed air, physical throttle movement or even a boost pump). Snow... On 7/23/05 3:09 PM, in article XlrEe.7460$Qi4.993337@news20.bellglobal.com, > baby busses are a single switch operation, push the start switch and the > engine will spool and add fuel on its own. (providing the main Batts. are on > and electrical power is available) I rest my case. ej > On 7/23/05 3:09 PM, in article > XlrEe.7460$Qi4.993337@news20.bellglobal.com, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I rest my case. Well if you go back to my original statement, I said "most engine starts are a single push button operation" I didn't say all of them.... there are more then 737's out there flying.. Snow... > > On 7/23/05 3:09 PM, in article > > XlrEe.7460$Qi4.993337@news20.bellglobal.com, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > are a single push button operation" I didn't say all of them.... there are > more then 737's out there flying.. In which case I'll add *most engine starts AREN'T single button*. Incidentally I believe the first aircraft to have a simple 'starter switch' was the British AvroVulcan V-Bomber. http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/vulcan/index.html Graham On 7/24/05 1:51 AM, in article 42E2D7EE.8E3601A4@hotmail.com, "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> On 7/23/05 3:09 PM, in article >>> XlrEe.7460$Qi4.993337@news20.bellglobal.com, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Graham My father was famous for telling me when I was a kid and I was asking about the possibility of stealing a plane. He always said, an untrained thief," couldn't even get it started." And he did fly the 767. ej On 7/24/05 1:15 AM, in article KeAEe.12678$je2.1314675@news20.bellglobal.com, "Snow" <snowbal@sympatico.ca> wrote: > Well if you go back to my original statement, I said "most engine starts > are a single push button operation" I didn't say all of them.... there are > more then 737's out there flying.. Meaning you were making it up as you went along. ej On 7/23/05 3:09 PM, in article XlrEe.7460$Qi4.993337@news20.bellglobal.com, > majority of the others are the same, some > may have an extra switch to flip (bleed air, physical throttle movement or > even a boost pump). Shall I send you the engine start -procedures- for the 737 and the airbus 31x-32x? ej On 7/22/05 7:30 PM, in article o4aEe.10067$je2.1053487@news20.bellglobal.com, "Snow" <snowbal@sympatico.ca> wrote: > and once the NAV computers have aligned > (takes about 40 seconds) its push in way points (or pre-loaded FMS flight > database) and the plane will do the rest. As for taxiing, its a piece of > piss easier then driving a car. No, the plane will not, do the rest, especially if something goes wrong? Engine failure, bad weather, heavy traffic, instructions from Ground control, the tower, departure control, and ATC can all issues commands to the pilots which will cause them to deviate from any FMS. An example of this is the AA 757 crash in the Columbian mountains. The Approach control asked if they wanted a direct approach, which was not what their FMS was programmed for. In reprogramming the FMS, the pilot made a mistake, causing the plane to turn to the right, causing them to fly into a valley to the east of the one they were supposed to be in. Because of the change in approach, the co-pilot, flying the plane at the time, deployed the speed brakes. They stayed deployed. When the captain realized what was happening, he shoved the throttles forward pointed the nose up, and almost made it, were it not for the speed brakes which were still deployed, they would have made it to minimum safe altitude before slamming into a mountain wall, killing all but 4 on board. And you were saying about automatic flying?? ej > On 7/22/05 7:30 PM, in article > o4aEe.10067$je2.1053487@news20.bellglobal.com, "Snow" [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > And you were saying about automatic flying?? Oh I see you watch tv too, Too bad you missed key points. 1- approach control had no radar (local militants blew it up earlier on in the week) 2- approach had asked the pilots many times if they could radio once they pass a certain beacon.. the pilots never made the call 3- without radar on the ground controllers had no idea where the plane was. Snow... > > On 7/22/05 7:30 PM, in article > > o4aEe.10067$je2.1053487@news20.bellglobal.com, "Snow" [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > pass a certain beacon.. the pilots never made the call > 3- without radar on the ground controllers had no idea where the plane was. The flight crew should have known but they didn't. They entered incorrect data into the automation. The automation accepted the incorrect commands and flew the plane where they didn't actually want it to go. Graham > They entered incorrect data into the automation. The automation accepted > the > incorrect commands and flew the plane where they didn't actually want it > to go. Oh no doubt about that, but if the crew had used the "step" function on the nav/fms screen they would have found what they were looking for, but an old pilot who didn't understand the new equipment decided to manually input the info. (at least that is what air disasters claimed on discovery channel) Snow... > > They entered incorrect data into the automation. The automation accepted > > the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > pilot who didn't understand the new equipment decided to manually input the > info. (at least that is what air disasters claimed on discovery channel) I gather that the capt actually had plenty of time on new generation aircraft but simply selected ( maybe out of habit ) the first option for a new waypoint ( normally the correct one ) presented to him by the FMS without checking it. From then on the aircraft was heading off course. Actually it's silly to talk about an 'old pilot' that way. All pilots have to demonstrate ability 'on type'. You don't get to be capt without relevant experience on that model of aircraft. What they were doing couldn't have been done by automation alone either. It was effectively an inflight change to the flight plan. Graham On 7/23/05 6:04 PM, in article TVtEe.8251$Qi4.1016282@news20.bellglobal.com, > Oh no doubt about that, but if the crew had used the "step" function on the > nav/fms screen they would have found what they were looking for, but an old > pilot who didn't understand the new equipment decided to manually input the > info. (at least that is what air disasters claimed on discovery channel) He had passed the nav point he wanted, and the computer was giving him options he did not want. ej On 7/23/05 3:15 PM, in article esrEe.7463$Qi4.993737@news20.bellglobal.com, > Oh I see you watch tv too, No (well yes), but the aircraft information and crash investigation explanations I get directly from the sources, the industry journals and reports which are forwarded my by my brother, and I discuss them at length. ej On 7/23/05 3:15 PM, in article esrEe.7463$Qi4.993737@news20.bellglobal.com, > 2- approach had asked the pilots many times if they could radio once they > pass a certain beacon.. the pilots never made the call Because they were trying to figure out why the FMS would not accept the entry they were trying to give it. And a radar outage at destination is one of the things that the avionics would not be able to deal with as they are. ej > On 7/23/05 3:15 PM, in article esrEe.7463$Qi4.993737@news20.bellglobal.com, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And a radar outage at destination is one of the things that the avionics > would not be able to deal with as they are. Indeed, a radar outage is one of the many reasons you have pilots in the cockpit ! Graham On 7/23/05 3:15 PM, in article esrEe.7463$Qi4.993737@news20.bellglobal.com, > 3- without radar on the ground controllers had no idea where the plane was. But this is international flying and the pilots, the plane and the company operations should have known and were responsible to know the position of the plane. It is your idea that these planes can fly themselves, right? ej > Overall, these sentences seem very harsh, considering that the prosecution > was nowhere near proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They were > fired. That's what they deserved. Several years in prison, also? No, > that's not called for. IMHO -Dave There are literally a MILLION americans in prison for drug crimes. Many of them serving multi-decade sentences for mere possession. They weren't even a potential threat to anyone but there they sit rotting away in a cell. The drug crime these pilots committed is a hundred times worse than having an ounce of cocaine on you so stop being a criminal coddler. > There are literally a MILLION americans in prison for drug crimes. Many > of them serving multi-decade sentences for mere possession. They [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The drug crime these pilots committed is a hundred times worse than > having an ounce of cocaine on you so stop being a criminal coddler. So what's your point? We should unjustly punish a couple of pilots because millions of other people are being unjustly punished? I don't agree with long prison sentences for drug possession. Note I don't do drugs, period. Except Zyrtec, that is. (prescription allergy medicine) -Dave > > There are literally a MILLION americans in prison for drug crimes. Many > > of them serving multi-decade sentences for mere possession. They [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > millions of other people are being unjustly punished? I don't agree with > long prison sentences for drug possession. I think these two guys deserve what they got. I don't think their sentences are unjust at all. And likewise think Bush should have done a couple years in prison back in 76 when he was caught driving drunk. Drunk drivers and drunk pilots are killers and maimers. Stop being a criminal coddler. > Drunk drivers and drunk pilots are killers and maimers. Only if they have an accident. Perfectly sober ppl have accidents too ( and also kill and maim ). Frankly, I'd rather be driven by a competent driver who's had a fraction 'over the limit' than by someone who shouldn't be driving in the first place. Graham On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 05:48:07 +0100, Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> was understood to have stated the following: >> Drunk drivers and drunk pilots are killers and maimers. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >rather be driven by a competent driver who's had a fraction 'over the limit' than >by someone who shouldn't be driving in the first place. Now that's a good idea. Too bad it's lost on burn-outs like LBMHBF. >I think these two guys deserve what they got. I don't think their >sentences are unjust at all. And likewise think Bush should have done >a couple years in prison back in 76 when he was caught driving drunk. >Drunk drivers and drunk pilots are killers and maimers. Stop being a >criminal coddler. Stop being a criminal coddler? What about your hero Teddy Kennedy? His DUI *killed* someone, and yet you never have anything to say about that. Your double-standards are showing again, loser. On 7/22/05 8:04 PM, in article 42e13517$0$1695$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net, "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote: > So what's your point? We should unjustly punish a couple of pilots because > millions of other people are being unjustly punished? No, we punish the pilots according to the law. Which seems to have beenn done here. >I don't agree with > long prison sentences for drug possession. Good for you. Have you written your local legislators, most responsible for drug policy, as well as your Federal legislators demanding an end eo mandatory minimum sentencing? Or are you too busy defending the indefensible? Note I don't do drugs, period. > Except Zyrtec, that is. (prescription allergy medicine) -Dave Which may be illegal to use in the cockpit. Have you checked? ej Note I don't do drugs, period. > > Except Zyrtec, that is. (prescription allergy medicine) -Dave > > Which may be illegal to use in the cockpit. Have you checked? I'd be surprised if it is. I know that (if I was a pilot), it would be extremely dangerous for me to be flying any airplane if I was NOT on Zyrtec. Short version is, I was having trouble breathing, doctors were thinking asthma, but they referred me to a allergy specialist and found out that I was allergic to *everything*. Without Zyrtec, I don't breathe. Kind of hard to fly an airplane, I would think, if you can't breathe. :) -Dave > Note I don't do drugs, period. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > was allergic to *everything*. Without Zyrtec, I don't breathe. Kind of > hard to fly an airplane, I would think, if you can't breathe. :) -Dave Sure, but the point is, if Zyrtec has any effect on awareness and speed of response ( say like an anti-histamine ) then it'll be banned from flight use. You simply won't be allowed to fly as an ATPL if you need anything like that. Graham > Sure, but the point is, if Zyrtec has any effect on awareness and speed of > response ( say like an anti-histamine ) then it'll be banned from flight [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Graham Yeah, I know what you are saying. I've taken several medicines (prescription and OTC) for allergies. Many of them will simply put you to sleep. So I wouldn't want a pilot using them. From what I've experienced though, I would think Zyrtec would be OK for flying. It's one of the few non-drowsy allergy medications available. -Dave > > Sure, but the point is, if Zyrtec has any effect on awareness and speed of > > response ( say like an anti-histamine ) then it'll be banned from flight [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > though, I would think Zyrtec would be OK for flying. It's one of the few > non-drowsy allergy medications available. -Dave Ok - here's a pretty definitive answer. " Currently, the FAA does not approve the prescription antihistamines Zyrtec or Astelin for use during flight duty. Use of these medications requires a 24-36 hour grounding period following the last dose. " http://www.aviationmedicine.com/meds.htm Graham >> Yeah, I know what you are saying. I've taken several medicines >> (prescription and OTC) for allergies. Many of them will simply put you [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://www.aviationmedicine.com/meds.htm That surprises the heck out of me, considering that later in the same article it says that Claritin and Allegra are OK, as long as you say that you suffer no side effects from it. Different people have different experiences with allergy medicines. However, I personally find that Zyrtec is more effective than Allegra, and that Claritin has no effect on my allergy symptoms at all. As for "side effects", both allegra and claritin made me somewhat drowsy while I was taking them. I certainly wouldn't want to be FLYING on allegra or claritin, although the FAA seems to say this is OK, under certain circumstances. Zyrtec has no effect on me at all, other than eliminating my allergy symptoms and (therefore) allowing me to breathe normally. Zyrtec certainly doesn't make me drowsy, like other medicines I've tried. So I'm shocked to discover that Zyrtec is a no-no according to the FAA, whereas allegra and claritin (which have more "side effects", in my experience) are OK. That seems kind of backward. If the FAA is going to discriminate, I would think that they'd favor a medicine with fewer "side effects". If the FAA classed Zyrtec like they do allegra and claritin, I COULD be a pilot on Zyrtec, as I could claim (honestly) that Zyrtec has no side-effects for me. Pilots can use claritin and allegra if they claim that they have no side-effects. I'm guessing this means that a lot of pilots take allegra, as that is the most effective allergy medicine currently allowed for use by pilots. It's too bad they can't use Zyrtec, though. I'm betting at least some of those allegra users would find that zyrtec is more effective for them. It certainly is for me. On a side note, how would the FAA know if a pilot was using Claritin anyway? You don't need a prescription for it. It's not like the clerk at wally world is going to ask you if you are a pilot. :) -Dave > > Overall, these sentences seem very harsh, considering that the prosecution > > was nowhere near proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They were [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The drug crime these pilots committed is a hundred times worse than > having an ounce of cocaine on you so stop being a criminal coddler. If DUI is so much worse a crime than mere possession of other substances, why aren't you screaming about Teddy Kennedy. Oh yeah, it's those double-standards you extremist retards are so good at applying. How are things down at the bath house, faggot? On 7/22/05 7:49 PM, in article 1122054558.442644.204110@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Overall, these sentences seem very harsh, considering that the prosecution >> was nowhere near proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They were [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The drug crime these pilots committed is a hundred times worse than > having an ounce of cocaine on you so stop being a criminal coddler. Agreed. ej "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote... > "laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote... > > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > fired. That's what they deserved. Several years in prison, also? No, > that's not called for. IMHO -Dave I did a little checking on intoxicated flying (checking FAR's and FL statutes) and a little delving back to my days as an Air Force aircrew member and private pilot and this is what I found out. In FL (860.13), it is a 3rd degree felony, punishable by up to 5 yrs in prison and $5000 fine (775.082-083), to operate an aircraft in the air or on the ground while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. The question, of course, is when is someone operating an aircraft. Operation of the aircraft is considered to be started anytime from the time at which the crew shows up to fly (pick up flight plan, weather, etc) to the time that the engines are running. Operation is not outwardly obvious until the preflight checklist is complete and the engine start checklist is started (which, on commercial jets, usually happens after the pushback from the gate). This (along with time lag through the reporting system) is why they weren't stopped and arrested at the gate. As for whether the pilots were intoxicated or not, I believe this was the case where the gate agent or security screeners smelled alcohol on the pilots as well as noticing intoxicated behavior. If someone is acting intoxicated and smells of alcohol, they are in no condition to be flying a plane. Also note that the article indicates that a BAC level test was taken 'hours later' and they were still above .08. In the FAR's, Part 91 Section 17 says: (a) No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft— (1) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage; (2) While under the influence of alcohol; (3) While using any drug that affects the person's faculties in any way contrary to safety; or (4) While having .04 percent by weight or more alcohol in the blood. This is where the 8 hrs bottle-to-throttle comes from (for us Air Force flyers, it was bottle-to-showtime, generally 2 to 2.5 hrs before takeoff). Also note the .04 BAC rather than .08 BAC. As for your opinion as to what it takes to fly an airplane, its relatively obvious that you have never piloted one and you are way off the mark. Yes, today's commercial airliners basically fly themselves from takeoff to landing now. The pilot is there to deal with problems and emergencies and as a top decision maker concerning the flight itself. When the airplane starts breaking part way through your flight it can quickly overwhelm a top crew hitting all its marks, much less a crew with intoxicated crew members. In my opinion, the flight crew got exactly what they deserved. The pilot-in-command got a full sentence and the co-pilot got a lesser sentence. --Andy -------------------------------------------------- Andrew G. Tompkins Software Engineer Beaverton, OR http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Highways -------------------------------------------------- > I did a little checking on intoxicated flying (checking FAR's and FL statutes) and a > little delving back to my days as an Air Force aircrew member and private pilot and [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > (a) No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft- > (1) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage; > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > In my opinion, the flight crew got exactly what they deserved. The pilot-in-command > got a full sentence and the co-pilot got a lesser sentence. Thanks for an extremely informative post on this subject. I was unaware of the .04 limit - that means they were over twice the limit, and that was when tested hours after their arrest! Also an excellent point on why the left seat got less of a sentence than the right, I was wondering about that myself. Bo Raxo On 7/22/05 8:36 PM, in article 2tydnYAS8fQYoXzfRVn-qg@comcast.com, "Andrew Tompkins" <andytom@comcast.net> wrote: > "Ted B." <noway@nohow.not.ever> wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 134 lines] > http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Highways > -------------------------------------------------- AMEN! ej > > This is great but why don't we take the same attitude with drunk > > drivers on the highways? Why do we have both a prez and a vp with [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > BAC level was at the time of the "attempt". So not even "attempted" DUI > could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Blood alcohol level drops at a fairly predictable rate. I'm pretty sure UK police have used this to 'prove' that some drivers were over the limit at the time they were involved in traffic offences, even though they were only arrested some hours later. Graham >> This is great but why don't we take the same attitude with drunk >> drivers on the highways? Why do we have both a prez and a vp with >> convictions for DUI? >> >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8662857/ Simple: Bush, Cheney and Alice ("do you know who I am?") Walton all bought their way out of it. > This is great but why don't we take the same attitude with drunk > drivers on the highways? Why do we have both a prez and a vp with > convictions for DUI? > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8662857/ Because some people drive better when drunk. Especially people with ADD. On 7/22/05 8:00 PM, in article 11e2d10ennnqh6f@news.supernews.com, "Dan J.S." <me@hyperx.com> wrote: >> This is great but why don't we take the same attitude with drunk >> drivers on the highways? Why do we have both a prez and a vp with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Because some people drive better when drunk. Especially people with ADD. No, they don't, and MSNBC is not a super good source for anything. ej >> Because some people drive better when drunk. Especially people with ADD. >> >No, they don't, and MSNBC is not a super good source for anything. Depends on by what you mean by "better" and "drunk." If by "better" you mean adhering to the speed limit, then yes, this ADD sufferer *definitely* drove better after a few beers, but not after a lot of beers. Without any intoxication, the posted speed limits in most places and most conditions around here are too low to keep my attention focused on the road. > This is great but why don't we take the same attitude with drunk > drivers on the highways? Why do we have both a prez and a vp with > convictions for DUI? Are you so f.cking stupid you can't tell the difference between a pilot operating a vehicle filled with hundreds of occupants, flying thousands of feet above the ground, at hundreds of miles an hour, and a car with a couple of occupants at best, moving much slower? Did your parents have any kids that lived, fag? > This is great but why don't we take the same attitude with drunk > drivers on the highways? Why do we have both a prez and a vp with [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Prosecutor Hillah Katz called that argument "an insult. Two years...acceptable. Five years...too stiff |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.