|
Café Pedro 10: Mostly Harmless
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 25-03-2015 07:21
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
jseadog1 wrote:
TheManxMissile wrote:
It's the lack of control most people dislike most about flying. It's just part of human nature to want to be in control of yourself. There are other things like vertigo or claustrophobia but they are broader fears.
Yes, this exactly. Nobody is going to take over my driving wheel and crash it into a huge tower...
While the roads are full of idiots that will run into your car when going over 100kms/h. Flying is great, one of the best things that people ever invented. On the other hand, individual car transport is one of the worst things ever coming to life. It hurts nature, it hurts people and it gives total loosers a confidence to be important on the road...
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 23-11-2024 17:17
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 25-03-2015 07:26
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
jseadog1 wrote:
TheManxMissile wrote:
It's the lack of control most people dislike most about flying. It's just part of human nature to want to be in control of yourself. There are other things like vertigo or claustrophobia but they are broader fears.
Yes, this exactly. Nobody is going to take over my driving wheel and crash it into a huge tower...
While the roads are full of idiots that will run into your car when going over 100kms/h. Flying is great, one of the best things that people ever invented. On the other hand, individual car transport is one of the worst things ever coming to life. It hurts nature, it hurts people and it gives total loosers a confidence to be important on the road...
True, true,
Just one point. Cars do hurt nature.
But flying is 1000 times worse, just had to say that 
But you are correct on the other points. And statistically it's true, flying is safer. But I still wouldn't want to be caught dead in it (pun not intended...) |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 25-03-2015 07:54
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Ian Butler wrote:
True, true,
Just one point. Cars do hurt nature.
But flying is 1000 times worse, just had to say that
Not true by a long shot. The latest planes like the Dreamliner use less fuel per passenger per kilometer than a standard 4x4/SUV  And with the growing use and development of bio-jetfuels and other methods the aviation industry is a world leader in reducing it's environmental impacts
|
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 25-03-2015 08:04
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
Don't want to sound aggressive but it kind of comes out wrong, sorry:
Do you have any proof?
Because as far as I know, flying is still extremely bad for the environment. But, yeah, SUVs suck big time. But I mean driving a better car |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 25-03-2015 08:21
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Ian Butler wrote:
Don't want to sound aggressive but it kind of comes out wrong, sorry:
Do you have any proof?
A seminar i was at about 3 weeks ago
|
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 25-03-2015 08:30
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
Ian Butler wrote:
Don't want to sound aggressive but it kind of comes out wrong, sorry:
Do you have any proof?
A seminar i was at about 3 weeks ago
Would there be any source online about that? I'm very interested in these kinds of things so I try to collect different sources. |
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 25-03-2015 08:30
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
Ian Butler wrote:
Don't want to sound aggressive but it kind of comes out wrong, sorry:
Do you have any proof?
A seminar i was at about 3 weeks ago
Sponsored by Boeing? 
|
| |
|
|
| Selwink |
Posted on 25-03-2015 08:46
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8856
Joined: 17-05-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
jseadog1 wrote:
TheManxMissile wrote:
It's the lack of control most people dislike most about flying. It's just part of human nature to want to be in control of yourself. There are other things like vertigo or claustrophobia but they are broader fears.
Yes, this exactly. Nobody is going to take over my driving wheel and crash it into a huge tower...
While the roads are full of idiots that will run into your car when going over 100kms/h. Flying is great, one of the best things that people ever invented. On the other hand, individual car transport is one of the worst things ever coming to life. It hurts nature, it hurts people and it gives total loosers a confidence to be important on the road...
I second this completely.
Although I've never been on a plane in my life (yet) I have had/heard of accidents by car. Must be said the victim was on a bike in these cases, both times the car driver was to blame.
You may indeed have zero control over a plane, but you also have zero control over the incompetent drivers who may hit you or drive into you.
|
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 25-03-2015 11:43
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ian Butler wrote:
TheManxMissile wrote:
Ian Butler wrote:
Don't want to sound aggressive but it kind of comes out wrong, sorry:
Do you have any proof?
A seminar i was at about 3 weeks ago
Would there be any source online about that? I'm very interested in these kinds of things so I try to collect different sources.
"The new Airbus A380, Boeing 787, ATR-600 and Bombardier CSeries aircraft use less than 3 litres of jet fuel per 100 passenger kilometres. This matches the efficiency of most modern compact cars."
https://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures...gures.html
"The Dreamliner follows in the lower-carbon contrails of the Airbus A380 “super jumbo”, which was launched in 2007. When full – typically with about 470 seats – the A380 burns 17 per cent less fuel per seat than other large aircraft and produces only 75g of CO2 per passenger per km (most cars produce at least 130g and the Boeing 747 around 101g of CO2 per passenger per km). It also produces 75 per cent less noise than its current Boeing rivals. "
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/hub...lying.html |
| |
|
|
| Miguel98 |
Posted on 26-03-2015 13:03
|
World Champion
Posts: 10497
Joined: 23-06-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
So, the crash was voluntary.  |
| |
|
|
| sutty68 |
Posted on 26-03-2015 13:10
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 34654
Joined: 22-08-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Miguel98 wrote:
So, the crash was voluntary.
It looks that way judging by what the investigator has said at this mornings news conference  |
| |
|
|
| SSJ2Luigi |
Posted on 26-03-2015 18:42
|
World Champion
Posts: 11971
Joined: 21-07-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
makes that discussion before about flying v driving kinda a bit pointless. if a car driver decides to kill himself and you're a passanger, you likely also be dead. same with flying
|
| |
|
|
| rogvi97 |
Posted on 26-03-2015 21:55
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 933
Joined: 10-07-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
It a bit stupid, that it is one allowed to be in the cockpit... Some companies have adopted a rule, that at least two must be in the cockpit to prevent these possible dangers
No signature available
|
| |
|
|
| jseadog1 |
Posted on 26-03-2015 22:29
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 9595
Joined: 18-07-2010
PCM$: 13552.00
|
I will likely be flying for the first time in my life over the next 2 years (Either Dallas or Minneapolis) and its actually the prices that drive me away, even though it could be argued that gas would cost the same.
PCM.Daily Survivor Season 2 Fan Favorite Winner
PCM.Daily NFL Fantasy Football Champion: 2012
PCM.Daily NHL Prediction Game Champion: 2013
PCM.Daily NFL Prediction Game Champion: 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2021
|
| |
|
|
| Bikex |
Posted on 27-03-2015 14:37
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7257
Joined: 25-08-2012
PCM$: 600.00
|
rogvi97 wrote:
It a bit stupid, that it is one allowed to be in the cockpit... Some companies have adopted a rule, that at least two must be in the cockpit to prevent these possible dangers
No it's a bit stupid that now always two have to be in the cockpit. If a pilot decided to kill himself, he just has to press the rudder pedal fully and the plane is upside down in no time.
So kind of pointless these new rules that are adapted after something like that.
Also it's not fully clear yet that the copilot really crashed the plane voluntarily. The current evidence makes it what happened most likely but some things seem very strange imo. |
| |
|
|
| rogvi97 |
Posted on 28-03-2015 22:49
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 933
Joined: 10-07-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Bikex wrote:
rogvi97 wrote:
It a bit stupid, that it is one allowed to be in the cockpit... Some companies have adopted a rule, that at least two must be in the cockpit to prevent these possible dangers
No it's a bit stupid that now always two have to be in the cockpit. If a pilot decided to kill himself, he just has to press the rudder pedal fully and the plane is upside down in no time.
So kind of pointless these new rules that are adapted after something like that.
Also it's not fully clear yet that the copilot really crashed the plane voluntarily. The current evidence makes it what happened most likely but some things seem very strange imo.
Agreed, but it's more safe in the cockpit when there's two, no matter what happens, but, of course, flying a in a plane is very dangerous, but again, these folks sit in simulators for over 100,000 of hours, only to maximize security of their own and the passengers
No signature available
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 28-03-2015 22:59
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
The problem with enforcing a "two in the cockpit at all times" rule is that Pilots, especially on Long Haul flights, are humans and need to move about and use the toilet. You can't build a toilet in the cockpit and you can't deny them access to a toilet on a 10+ hour flight. Equally it's very much a 'bolt the stable door after the horse has run' solution because this is such a rare occurence.
A "two in the cockpit at all times" rule is possible but would require increaseing flight crew to three-people minimums on all flights. That's a big cost change to airlines for the purpose of pretty much having a guy get a free flight and not do anything except in the 1in100000000 chance one of the flight crew has a mental illness/alterior motive.
So how does the JAA/EASA prevent something like this happening again? Truthfully it can't really. Expect airlines to tighten up medical and psycological checks for the next few years but if someone is going to the lengths he was you can't really take much preventitve action.
It's a sad story all around with a horrible ending. I've given up reading anything about it in the mainstream media because of the way they are butchering the mental illness side which makes me very angry.
|
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 28-03-2015 23:08
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Or, you know, you could just put one of the other crew members in the cockpit while the pilot/co-pilot is on the toilet.
Seriously, though, that rule will probably not be enforced. Neither is it really 'required'. This is such an extremely rare case - you can't really do much to avoid it in the future. If a pilot wants to crash the plane, he'll find a way.
A possible solution: Let the air control be able to take over the plane (auto-pilot) in case of hijacks.
May not be technically possible, I don't know, but perhaps an option. |
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 29-03-2015 10:24
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
The problem with enforcing a "two in the cockpit at all times" rule is that Pilots, especially on Long Haul flights, are humans and need to move about and use the toilet. You can't build a toilet in the cockpit and you can't deny them access to a toilet on a 10+ hour flight. Equally it's very much a 'bolt the stable door after the horse has run' solution because this is such a rare occurence.
A "two in the cockpit at all times" rule is possible but would require increaseing flight crew to three-people minimums on all flights. That's a big cost change to airlines for the purpose of pretty much having a guy get a free flight and not do anything except in the 1in100000000 chance one of the flight crew has a mental illness/alterior motive.
So how does the JAA/EASA prevent something like this happening again? Truthfully it can't really. Expect airlines to tighten up medical and psycological checks for the next few years but if someone is going to the lengths he was you can't really take much preventitve action.
It's a sad story all around with a horrible ending. I've given up reading anything about it in the mainstream media because of the way they are butchering the mental illness side which makes me very angry.
The current two in the cockpit at all times rules allows for a member of the cabin crew to be one of those two,, just one has to be a pilot
 |
| |
|
|
| maxime86 |
Posted on 29-03-2015 14:48
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 2950
Joined: 01-03-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
I know this is really off topic, but what happened to admirschleck? I remeber him recieving a two week ban but what happened after that?
Btw, the two people in a cockpit thing seems to work very well, at least in the US, so is there a certain reason others havent put that rule into place? |
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
