Jump to content


Donating Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by W5

  1. Of course retardant doesn't usually get put right on the fire. In California (and some other states) the lead plane will use coloured smoke to indicate where you should drop. Here are a series of DC-10 firefighting videos: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/watching-this-dc-10-fire-retardant-drop-run-will-make-y-1634763423 In Canada the birddog officer will ask for a specific placement.
  2. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport/from-auld-scotia-to-nova-scotia.25489512 From auld Scotia to Nova Scotia Friday 3 October 2014 LOW-COST Canadian carrier WestJet is to launch its first UK route with direct, daily flights between Glasgow Airport and Halifax from next year. The service will launch next summer and is the airline's second transatlantic venture. In June it launched a daily summer service between Dublin and Newfoundland, but Glasgow will be its only other European destination. The inaugural non-stop flight to Halifax, the capital of Nova Scotia, will depart from Glasgow on May 30 and will fly daily until October 24. Seats go on sale today, with prices starting about £170 one-way, including taxes. Journey time to Halifax is five hours 15 minutes and will be operated by a 136-seat Boeing 737-700. Passengers will be able to connect to Montreal, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and 16 other cities in WestJet's Canadian network. The airline also operates flights to destinations across mainland America, as well as to Hawaii, Mexico and the Caribbean. The launch will boost Glasgow Airport's status as Scotland's leading long-haul airport, currently serving 15 destinations in North America, Mexico, the Caribbean and the Middle East. In addition, 60 per cent of passengers flying from Glasgow to Reykjavik with Icelandair connect to North America. In recognition of the strong cultural and historic ties between Scotland and Nova Scotia the inaugural flight will be numbered WS30, in reference to St Andrew's Day. Mike Cantlay, chairman of ­tourism agency VisitScotland, said: "Canada and Nova Scotia, in particular, represent an exciting diaspora stronghold and a fantastic opportunity for Scottish tourism. "Some 4.7 million Canadians have Scottish ancestry, with 24 per cent of them wanting to visit Scotland in search of those roots. "The new WestJet route presents a sizeable opportunity to tap into an ancestral market worth up to £450 million over the next five years." Amanda McMillan, managing director of Glasgow Airport, said it was fantastic news. She added: "WestJet is an ambitious airline with an extensive route network and we are delighted it has chosen Glasgow as its first UK destination. "Scotland has always enjoyed a close relationship with Canada and the daily service to Halifax will provide our customers with greater choice and also further strengthen our long haul connectivity." Scottish Transport Minister Keith Brown said: "Our two countries have close cultural and historic ties and this new service will help strengthen these important bonds. "I outlined the benefits of ­establishing routes like this when I met representatives of Halifax Stanfield International Airport during my visit to Canada last year and I am sure it will prove popular and successful." Mr Brown said even more direct flights would come to Scotland if Westminster devolved control over Air Passenger Duty, which the Scottish Government is keen to axe. Gordon Matheson, leader of Glasgow City Council, said: "There will undoubtedly be strong demand for this service, which has huge potential to deliver significant inbound leisure tourism. "Canada is Glasgow's second largest international market, with 37,000 trips made each year by Canadian visitors who generate £12m for the city's economy."
  3. You too can have your real live checkout Mitch: http://www.stallion51.com/
  4. I only have that problem when using Internet Explorer as a browser, not any of the others.
  5. Map of a Tragedy The Wall Street Journal catalogued and mapped some of the debris of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, which fell across three Ukrainian villages after the Boeing 777 was brought down on July 17, allegedly by a surface-to-air missile. http://graphics.wsj.com/mh17-crash-map/
  6. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28460625 A passenger plane carrying 116 people is feared to have crashed on a flight from Burkina Faso to the Algerian capital Algiers. Contact with the Air Algerie flight was lost over the Sahara as it crossed Mali in bad weather, officials said. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said the plane, which has 51 French citizens aboard, "probably crashed". French media reported that soldiers had found wreckage in Tilemsi, central Mali, but this was not confirmed. Reuters quoted Mali's President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita as saying that wreckage had been found much further east, between Aguelhoc and Kidal. Contact with Flight AH 5017, chartered from Spanish airline Swiftair, was lost about 50 minutes after take-off from Ouagadougou, Air Algerie said. The pilot had contacted Niger's control tower in Niamey to change course because of a sandstorm, officials say. Speaking in Paris, Mr Fabius said: "Despite intensive search efforts no trace of the aircraft has yet been found. The plane probably crashed." He said two French Mirage fighter planes were scouring the area. French President Francois Hollande cancelled a planned visit overseas and said every effort was being made to find the plane. "The search will take as long as needed," he told reporters. Earlier, an Algerian official told Reuters that the plane had crashed, but gave no further details. France's civil aviation body said crisis centres had been set up at airports in Paris and Marseille. Burkina Faso authorities said the passenger list comprised 27 people from Burkina Faso, 51 French, eight Lebanese, six Algerians, two from Luxembourg, five Canadians, four Germans, one Cameroonian, one Belgian, one Egyptian, one Ukrainian, one Swiss, one Nigerian and one Malian. The six crew members are Spanish, according to the Spanish pilots' union. UN troops in Mali say they understand the plane came down between Gao and Tessalit, the BBC's Alex Duval Smith in the Malian capital Bamako reports.She says the search area is vast, with few roads, and there is rebel activity. Added to that, sandstorms make visibility in the Sahara poor for at least a day, she adds. "In keeping with procedures, Air Algerie has launched its emergency plan," Air Algerie officials, quoted by APS news agency (in French), said. Algerian Prime Minister Abdelmalek Sellal reportedly told Algerian radio: "The plane disappeared at Gao (in Mali), 500km (300 miles) from the Algerian border." Burkina Faso Transport Minister Jean Bertin Ouedraogo said the plane sent its last message at around 01:30 GMT, asking air traffic controllers in Niger to change its route because of bad weather. l In a statement (in Spanish), Swiftair said that the aircraft was a McDonnell Douglas MD-83 and that they were unable to establish contact with it.An Algerian official had previously told Reuters that the plane was an Airbus A320. An unnamed Air Algerie company source, speaking to AFP news agency, said: "The plane was not far from the Algerian frontier when the crew was asked to make a detour because of poor visibility and to prevent the risk of collision with another aircraft on the Algiers-Bamako route." "Contact was lost after the change of course." Flight AH 5017 flies the Ouagadougou-Algiers route four times a week, AFP reported.
  7. http://theaviationist.com/2014/07/24/mh-17-puncture-marks/ Evidence of shrapnel damage to the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 has emerged from images taken at the crash site.Photos taken at the MH17 crash site clearly show shrapnel signs on various parts of the wreckage of the Boeing 777 shot down over eastern Ukraine while en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur with 298 people on board. Among all the images published on media outlets from all around the world, the one first published by Financial Times over the past weekend, struck our attention. The piece of wreckage, reportedly measuring 1 mt sq, has a couple of distinctive features that may help the identification: the colored stripes of the Malaysia Airlines livery and the bolts of the cockpit side windshield. Based on these details, with the help of our contributor Giuliano Ranieri, we were able to identify the piece as a chunk of front fuselage located next to the cockpit (slightly below it), on the left hand side of the plane. The piece has several burn marks, a large central hole and several smaller punture marks surrouding it. The edges of the small holes seem to be bent outwards, evidence of something that got out of the skin from the inside of the plane. This is a sign the missile, most probably fired by an SA-11 system according to almost all reports to date, equipped with aproximity fuse, detonated on the right side of the aircraft not too far from the nose, scattering several fragments of shrapnel so fast that they traversed the plane from side to side: they entered through the right side of the airframe and got out from the left one. Furthermore, considering the amount of puncture marks concentrated at the base of the cockpit window’s we can assume both pilots were invested by high speed, hot shrapnels that most probably did not give them time to realize what was going on.
  8. A pretty good summary: Automation Myths: Do Planes Really Fly Themselves?http://www.nycaviation.com/2014/07/automation-myths-planes-really-fly/#.U87jvuNdXNl Air travel has always been rich with conspiracy theories, urban legends, and old wives’ tales. I’ve heard it all. Nothing, however, gets me sputtering more than the myths and exaggerations about cockpit automation—this pervasive idea that modern aircraft are flown by computer, with pilots on hand merely as a backup in case of trouble. The press and pundits repeat this garbage constantly, and millions of people actually believe it. In some not-too-distant future, we’re told, pilots will be engineered out of the picture altogether. This is so laughably far from reality that it’s hard to get my arms around it and begin to explain how the idea even arose, yet it amazes me how often this contention turns up—in magazines, on television, in the science section of the papers. Perhaps people are so gullible because they simply don’t know any better. Flying is mysterious, and information is hard to come by. If the “experts” say automatic planes are possible, then why not? But one thing you’ll notice is that these experts tend to be academics—professors, researchers, etc.—rather than pilots. Many of these people, however intelligent and however valuable their work might be, are highly unfamiliar with the day-to-day operational aspects of flying planes. Pilots too are guilty. “Aw, shucks, this plane practically lands itself,” one of us might say. We’re often our own worst enemies, enamored of gadgetry and, in our attempts to explain complicated procedures to the layperson, given to dumbing down. We wind up painting a caricature of what flying is really like and in the process undercut the value of our profession. Essentially, high-tech cockpit equipment assists pilots in the way that high-tech medical equipment assists physicians and surgeons. It has vastly improved their capabilities, but it by no means diminishes the experience and skill required to perform at that level and has not come remotely close to rendering them redundant. A plane is as able to fly itself about as much as the modern operating room can perform an operation by itself. “Talk about medical progress, and people think about technology,” wrote the surgeon and author Atul Gawande in a 2011 issue of The New Yorker. “But the capabilities of doctors matter every bit as much as the technology. This is true of all professions. What ultimately makes the difference is how well people use technology.” That about nails it. And what do terms like “automatic” and “autopilot” mean anyway? Typically I click off the autopilot around a thousand feet or so and hand-fly the rest of the landing. On takeoff, I fly manually at least through 10,000 feet, and sometimes all the way up to cruise. The autopilot is a tool, along with many other tools available to the crew. You still need to tell it what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. I prefer the term autoflight system. It’s a collection of several different functions controlling speed, thrust, and both horizontal and vertical navigation—together or separately, and all of it requiring regular crew inputs to work properly. On the jet I fly, I can set up an automatic climb or descent any of about six different ways, depending what’s needed. The media will quote supposed experts saying things like “pilots fly manually for only about ninety seconds of every flight.” Not only is this untrue, but it also neglects to impart any meaningful understanding as to the differences between manual and automatic, as if the latter were as simple as pressing a button and folding your arms. One evening I was sitting in economy class when our jet came in for an unusually smooth landing. “Nice job, autopilot!” yelled some knucklehead behind me. Amusing, maybe, but wrong. It was a fully manual touchdown, as the vast majority of touchdowns are. Yes, it’s true that most jetliners are certified for automatic landings, called “autolands” in pilot-speak. But in practice they are rare. Fewer than 1 percent of landings are performed automatically, and the fine print of setting up and managing one of these landings is something I could talk about all day. If it were as easy as pressing a button, I wouldn’t need to practice them twice a year in the simulator or periodically review those tabbed, highlighted pages in my manuals. In a lot of respects, automatic landings are more work-intensive than those performed by hand. The technology is there if you need it for that foggy arrival in Buenos Aires with the visibility sitting at zero, but it’s anything but simple. A flight is a very organic thing—complex, fluid, always changing—in which decision-making is constant and critical. For all of its scripted protocols, checklists, and SOP, hundreds if not thousands of subjective inputs are made by the crew, from deviating around a cumulus buildup (how far, how high, how long), to troubleshooting a mechanical issue to handling an onboard medical problem. Emergencies are another thing entirely. I’m talking about the run-of-the-mill situations that arise every single day, on every single flight, often to the point of task saturation. You’d be surprised how busy the cockpit can become. Another thing we hear again and again is how the sophisticated, automated Boeing or Airbus has made flying “easier” than it was in years past. On the contrary, it’s probably more demanding than it’s ever been. Once you account for all of the operational aspects of modern flying –- not merely the hands-on aspects of driving the plane, but familiarity with everything else that the job entails, from flight-planning to navigating to communicating—the volume of requisite knowledge is far greater than it used to be. The emphasis is on a somewhat different skill set, but it’s wrong to suggest that one skill set is necessarily more important than another. But, you’re bound to point out, what about the proliferation of remotely piloted military drones and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)? Are they not a harbinger of things to come? It’s tempting to see it that way. These machines are very sophisticated and have proven themselves reliable—to a point. But a drone is not a commercial jet carrying hundreds of people. It has an entirely different mission and operates in a wholly different environment—with far less at stake should something go wrong. You don’t simply take the drone concept, scale it up, build in a few redundancies, and off you go. I would like to see a drone perform a high-speed takeoff abort after a tire explosion, followed by the evacuation of 250 passengers. I would like to see one troubleshoot a pneumatic problem requiring an emergency diversion over mountainous terrain. I’d like to see it thread through a storm front over the middle of the ocean. Hell, even the simplest things. On any given flight there are innumerable contingencies, large and small, requiring the attention and subjective appraisal of the crew. And adapting the UAV model to the commercial realm would require, in addition to gigantic technological challenges, a restructuring of the entire commercial aviation infrastructure, from airports to ATC. We’re talking hundreds of billions of dollars, from the planes themselves to the facilities they’d rely on. We still haven’t perfected the idea of remote control cars, trains, or ships; the leap to commercial aircraft would be harder and more expensive by orders of magnitude. And for what? You’d still need human beings to operate these planes remotely. Thus I’m not sure what the benefit of this would be in terms of cost. It amuses me that as aviation technology progresses and evolves, so many people see elimination of the pilot as the logical, inevitable endpoint. I’ve never understood this. Are modern medical advances intended to eliminate doctors? Of course not. What exists in the cockpit today is already a fine example of how progress and technology have improved flying—making it faster, far safer, and more reliable than it once was. But it has not made it easy, and it is a long, long way from engineering the pilot out of the picture—something we needn’t be looking for in the first place. I know how this sounds to some of you. It comes across as jealousy, or I sound like a Luddite pilot trying to defend his profession against the encroachment of technology and an inevitable obsolescence. You can think that all you want. I am not against the advance of technology. I’m against foolish extrapolations of it. This article was originally published on AskThePilot.com and is used here with the author’s permission. Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, author, and host of AskThePilot.com.
  9. Press Release from the Flight Safety Foundation: FSF Calls for High-Level Ministerial Summit, Criminal Responsibility, in Wake of MH17 Alexandria, VA, July 21, 2014 - The Flight Safety Foundation today requested today that the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) call for a High-Level Ministerial meeting to review the systems in place to warn airlines of hostile airspace and take action in response to the shoot down of Malaysia Airlines 17 in the Ukraine, and for authorities to bring criminal prosecutions against those who brought down the aircraft and interfered with the investigation. "This tragically unfolding affront to safety, security, and humanity must be dealt with swiftly and surely by the international aviation community and law enforcement," said Jon Beatty, President and CEO of the Flight Safety Foundation. "Where known threats to civil aviation exist, States should assess and widely publish this information, or close the airspace. If States cannot discharge their responsibilities to manage their airspace safely, ICAO should play a leading role to alerting or prohibiting airlines from flying through known, hostile airspace," Beatty further stated. "The failure to secure the wreckage, the refusal to grant full and unimpeded access to investigators, the delay in turning over the cockpit voice recorder and digital flight data recorder, and the inhumane treatment of MH 17 victims' remains represent appalling acts of inhumanity and interference," Beatty continued. "Those obstructing this investigation should be held criminally responsible. ICAO investigators must be given immediate and unimpeded access to the site. While noting that FSF is often against the criminalization of aviation accidents, Beatty stated: "Let's be clear: this is now a crime scene, not an accident scene; the perpetrators of this barbaric act of sabotage, must be held criminally responsible." "If States are unwilling or unable to discharge their responsibilities in the wake of a downed civil aircraft, ICAO must be ready and able to assert control over the investigation," Beatty concluded. Flight Safety Foundation is an independent, non-profit, international organization engaged in research, education, advocacy and publishing to improve aviation safety. The Foundation's mission is to be the leading voice of safety for the global aerospace community.
  10. Fisher: Moscow has a lot of explaining to do in wake of Malaysia Airlines plane crash http://o.canada.com/news/fisher-moscow-has-a-lot-of-explaining-to-do-in-wake-of-plane-crash
  11. I think this has come up in the past, but here is the story: By Dario Leone The story of the C-130 Hercules that landed on USS ForrestalEven if, nowadays, the C-2 Greyhound is the biggest transport aircraft designed specifically for carrier operations, on Oct. 30 1963, in an attempt to investigate the possibilities of using the C-130 for logistic support for U.S. fleet, a Hercules made an experimental landing on the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal (CVA-59). With the successful test, which took place in moderately rough seas in the North Atlantic 500 miles off the coast of Boston, the Hercules became the largest and heaviest aircraft to ever land on an aircraft carrier, a record that stands to this day. The idea behind this unusual test was the so-called “Super Carrier Onboard Delivery” (Super COD) aircraft. The COD concept was born to resupply aircraft carriers with urgently needed items. At the beginning of the 1960s, the airplane used for such task was the Grumman C-1 Trader, a twin piston-engine aircraft with a limited payload capacity and 300-mile range, the Chief of Naval Operations ordered to assess the possibility of operating a bigger transport airplane aboard the Norfolk-based USS Forrestal (CVA-59). As explained by Joseph Earl Dabney in his book Herk: Hero of the Skies the C-130 was selected for its stability and reliability, combined with a long cruising range and the capability of carrying large payloads. The crew for this historic test consisted of Lt. James H. Flatley III, pilot; Lt. Cmdr. W.W. Stovall, copilot; ADR-1 E.F. Brennan, flight engineer; and Lockheed engineering flight test pilot Ted H. Limmer, Jr. When Lt. James H. Flatley III was told about his new assignment, he thought somebody was pulling his leg. “Operate a C-130 off an aircraft carrier? Somebody’s got to be kidding,” he said. According to Dabney a KC-130F refueler transport (BuNo 149798), on loan from the U.S. Marines and delivered on Oct. 8, 1963 was chosen for the historical trial. Lockheed’s only modifications to the original plane was a smaller nose-landing gear orifice, an improved anti-skid braking system, and removal of the underwing refueling pods. “The big worry was whether we could meet the maximum sink rate of nine feet per second,” Flatley said. But, the Navy was amazed to find they were able to better this mark by a substantial margin. The initial sea trials started on Oct. 30 1963 and were conducted into a 40-knot wind: however the crew successfully performed 29 touch-and-go landings, 21 unarrested full-stop landings, and 21 unassisted takeoffs at gross weights of 85,000 pounds up to 121,000 pounds. At 85,000 pounds, the KC-130F came to a complete stop within 267 feet, about twice the aircraft’s wing span as remarked by Dabney on his book. The Navy discovered that even with a maximum payload, the plane used only 745 feet of flight deck for takeoff and 460 feet for landing. These achievements were confirmed by Lockheed’s Ted Limmer, who checked out fighter pilot Flatley in the C-130 and stayed on for some of the initial touch-and-go and full-stop landings. “The last landing I participated in, we touched down about 150 feet from the end, stopped in 270 feet more and launched from that position, using what was left of the deck. We still had a couple hundred feet left when we lifted off.” The plane’s wingspan cleared the Forrestal’s flight deck “island” control tower by just under 15 feet as the plane roared down the deck on a specially painted line. As explained by Dabney, Lockheed’s chief engineer, Art E. Flock was aboard the USS Forrestal to observe the testing.“The sea was pretty big that day. I was up on the captain’s bridge. I watched a man on the ship’s bow as that bow must have gone up and down 30 feet.” The speed of the ship was increased 10 knots to reduce yaw motion and to reduce wind direction: in this way, when the plane landed, it had a 40 to 50 kts wind on the nose. “That airplane stopped right opposite the captain’s bridge,” recalled Flock. “There was cheering and laughing. There on the side of the fuselage, a big sign had been painted on that said, “LOOK MA, NO HOOK.” The analysis of data collected by the U.S. Navy during the tests highlighted that the C-130 Hercules could carry 25,000 pounds of freight, fly for 2,500 miles and eventually land on a carrier. However, the procedure was considered a bit too risky for the C-130 and the Navy decided to use a smaller COD aircraft. For his effort, the Navy awarded Flatley the Distinguished Flying Cross. In the video below you can see the trials conducted by the Hercules on the USS Forrestal and described in the article.
  12. I get a "Page not Found" message, when clicking on the link.
  13. ......or you could go for this one: Spitfire that saw in action in WW2 before starring in 1969 film Battle of Britain to be sold for £1.5m after spending 40 years in a Texas barn http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2690599/Spitfire-saw-action-WW2-starring-1969-film-Battle-Britain-sold-1-5m-spending-40-years-Texas-barn.html
  14. PinkFloyd to release new album in October http://consequenceofsound.net/2014/07/pink-floyd-to-release-new-album-the-endless-river-in-october/ This year marks the 20th anniversary of Pink Floyd’s fourteenth and final album, Division Bell. Beyond a deluxe reissue, David Gilmour apparently plans to mark the occasion with a brand new LP entitled The Endless River, which will be released in October. The news was revealed by Gilmour’s wife, Polly Samson, on Twitter. Samson added that the album is based on 1994 sessions with Pink Floyd’s Richard Wright. Singer Durga McBroom-Hudson, who toured with Pink Floyd throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, revealed further details on her Facebook page. “The recording did start duringThe Division Bell sessions (and yes, it was the side project originally titled ‘The Big Spliff’ that [Pink Floyd drummer] Nick Mason spoke about),” she explained. “Which is why there are Richard Wright tracks on it. But David and Nick have gone in and done a lot more since then. It was originally to be a completely instrumental recording, but I came in last December and sang on a few tracks. David then expanded on my backing vocals and has done a lead on at least one of them. That’s the song you see being worked on in the photo.” She also added that the album consists entirely of “unreleased songs.” Update: According to Pink Floyd news site Floydian Slip, recording engineer Andy Jackson has also confirmed the album’s release. “It is the extrapolation of the ‘Big Spliff,’” Jackson explained, referencing Gilbour’s scrapped project of ambient music. “A bunch of jams from ‘The Div(ision) Bell” sessions that have had new overdubs done in the last year or so.” Floydian Slip adds that an official announcement could come on Monday. It’s unclear whether Pink Floyd’s other principal member, Roger Waters, contributed to the album. He last appeared on the band’s 1983 record, The Final Cut, before departing to focus entirely on his solo career. Last fall, it was revealed that Gilmour was working on a new solo album, his first since 2006. At the moment, it’s also unclear how plans for the new Pink Floyd album will impact this release.
  15. Nine years ago today, Roger Waters, David Gilmour, Nick Mason and Richard Wright reunited in London's Hyde Park for the incredible Live 8 concert. As a reminder of how special that day was, here's the performance of Comfortably Numb: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_4uEaZQ2Kg
  16. Norwegian's LA route revives budget long-haul hopes http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28127489 A Norwegian direct airline service to Los Angeles has revived hopes for a budget long-haul market. Budget airline Norwegian started the new twice weekly service out of London's Gatwick Airport on Wednesday. Over the next two days it will also start flying twice a week from London to Fort Lauderdale and three times a week to New York. Norwegian made its first foray into long-haul in 2013 with routes from Scandinavia to the US and Thailand. Norwegian says that some low season flights can be had for as low as £179 ($272) one-way to New York, however only a limited of seats are available at this price. On Wednesday, Norwegian's website was offering flights in the height of the holiday season in July and August from £329 to £647. Labour row But the service, run from a new company called Norwegian Air International (NAI) in the Republic of Ireland, has been heavily criticised by US airlines and labour unions. They say NAI is using Ireland because of its more flexible labour laws. The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) said the creation of Norwegian Air International "was clearly designed to attempt to dodge laws and regulations, starting a race to the bottom on labour and working conditions". Among their complaints is NAI's use of pilots and crews from Asia to drive down costs. Norwegian says that it always respects the regulations of the markets in which it operates and says it is hiring 300 American cabin crew and New York-based pilots for its 787 Dreamliner operation. It said in a statement that NAI was based in Ireland to "access to future traffic rights to and from the EU (Norway is not a member of the EU)", and because being registered in Ireland gave it access to more flexible rules on financing. Consequences Norwegian has planned its long-haul business round fuel-efficient aircraft. It has a fleet of 787 Dreamliners with four more due for delivery before the end of 2014. If the Norwegian long-haul budget model works it could have far reaching consequences for the development of travel and how airports are used. The new generation of fuel efficient aircraft could mean more passengers flying "point-to-point" rather than via large hub airports such as Heathrow, Schiphol or Charles de Gaulle. By Richard Westcott, BBC Transport Correspondent. @BBCWestcott There is an argument that these new routes are so significant, they could change the course of the runway debate in Britain. Right now, Gatwick and Heathrow are in the middle of a dog fight over who should be allowed to expand. Gatwick reckons that a low-cost carrier offering long-haul flights is a sign of the future. A future where more of us fly directly to our destination, rather than transfer via a big, hub airport, like Heathrow. In which case, they argue, we might as well build the new runway at Gatwick because it's cheaper and far fewer people will suffer from the extra noise. But there's a snag here. This all seems to assume that the low-cost carriers are desperate to start flying us to the States, or to those gold rush cities in Asia and South America. Yet Gatwick's biggest customer, Easyjet doesn't agree. Their boss, Carolyn McColl, told the BBC only last month: "We have no intention to do long-haul because we think it's a different kind of business." She also said it was "high risk" to change the airline's short-haul strategy. The man leading the Airports Commission, Sir Howard Davies, once told me that his most important and most difficult challenge was to predict how we'll all be flying in the future. Will we use hubs or will we fly direct? His answer could determine who gets the next runway, but we won't hear it for another year. Failures Long-haul budget airline travel started in 1977 with Britain's Sir Freddie Laker and Skytrain. His venture went into liquidation in 1982, hit by recession and cut-price competition from the big airlines. In 2007, Malaysian music executive Tony Fernandes tried again with AirAsia X flying out of Kuala Lumpur. But five years later he was forced to pull out of the flights to Delhi, Mumbai, London, and Paris, saying he had been caught out by high fuel prices, taxes, and weak travel demand. Norwegian's main market is across Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. It carried 2.1 million passengers in May, an increase of 12% compared with the same month last year.
  17. I am sure the occasional howling west winds will give you your dose of aircraft noise
  18. Used to watch Keith Emerson with The Nice in 67/68
  19. The Washington Post right now is running a series of articles on drones. Here is today's story (pretty boring, but you'll get the drift): http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/06/23/stop-saying-uh-oh-while-youre-flying-drone-crash-pilot-quotes-unveiled/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost Drones are often called unmanned aircraft. But there is a lot of human drama when they crash. Drone pilots and other crew members swear, scream and yell at their remote-control video screens when the aircraft fly out of control. Those moments are often captured by audio recorders in ground control stations. Here’s a sampling of that dialogue, according to transcripts contained in Air Force accident investigation reports: *** “This thing’s kind of climbing like a pig. Climb, you pig. . . . Boy, this is going to be tight. . . . Okay, interesting. We are falling out of the sky.” Unidentified pilot of a Predator that crashed near Creech Air Force Base in Nevada on May 13, 2013. *** “Drone just pitched up. Drone’s pitching over. Drone is uh, crashed and destructed, at uh, the end of the runway.” Unidentified pilot of a chase plane that was following a QF-4E target drone before it crashed at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida on July 17, 2013. *** “What’s going on? Hang on! Hang on!. . . . Uh-oh! **bleep**! It’s spinning! . . . Okay, I think it just fell out of the sky.” Unidentified pilot of Predator that crashed near Kandahar Air Base in Afghanistan on March 2, 2013. *** “We’re in the soup here. . . . Dude, uh, we’re not sure what the aircraft is doing. . . . Yeah, we crashed.” Unidentified pilot of an Air Force Reaper as it crashed in Douglas County, Nev., on Dec. 5, 2012. *** “Stop saying ‘uh-oh’ while you’re flying. It’s never good. Like going to the dentist or a doctor. . . . ‘Oops? What the f— you mean ‘Oops?’ “ Unidentified camera operator, to a habitually nervous Predator pilot right before takeoff at Jalalabad Air Base on July 24, 2012. “Whoa. . . . I don’t know what the hell just happened.” The same nervous Predator pilot, moments later, after the drone crashed. *** “Holy **bleep**! We got hit by a UAV! Hit by a UAV!” Unidentified Air Force navigator of a C-130 Hercules transport plane that collided in midair with an Army RQ-7B Shadow drone in Afghanistan on Aug. 15, 2011. “There’s a big frickin’ hole in the airplane.” Unidentified pilot of the Hercules, moments later. *** “Dude, look at this camera. Seriously, I can’t do anything. There’s nothing I can do. This camera is completely f—–. Like there’s something in the air. Yeah, dude, I literally have no picture right now. This camera’s like, completely messed up.” Unidentified camera operator moments before his Predator crashed in the fog two miles short of the runway on May 17, 2011, in Djibouti, a country on the Horn of Africa where the U.S. military operates a large drone base. *** “Where the hell is — where is the runway? It’s all the way over here. I overshot. Oh, **bleep**. I think we lost the engine. Oh, **bleep**, oh damn, oh my God, what is that? . . . What was all that stuff I just hit?” Air Force Capt. Matthew Scardaci as his Predator crashed into a row of empty shipping containers at Kandahar Air Base on May 5, 2011. *** “Holy crap, this is really spinning.” Pilot of an MQ-9A Reaper moments before it crashed on Aug. 31, 2010, near Gray Butte Airfield in California. That’s freaking us!” Camera operator for a Predator after the air-traffic control tower at Balad Air Base in Iraq reported seeing a burning drone that had just crashed on Aug. 16, 2010. *** “I couldn’t tell which way it was turning, or if it was straight, if it was upside down, or if it was right-side up. . . . I couldn’t grasp what was happening with the aircraft. And he said he thought it was upside down.” Unidentified Predator pilot to investigators trying to determine how and why she flew the drone upside down before it crashed near Kandahar Air Base on Jan. 15, 2010. “Um, I guess I’ll just be blunt and say not well.” The Predator pilot who flew upside down, when asked by investigators how well her training had prepared her for such an incident. *** “As the plane was going down, all I saw were tents and I was afraid that I had killed someone. I felt numb and I am certain that a few cuss words came out of my mouth.” Maj. Richard Wageman to Air Force investigators examining the crash of a Predator at Kandahar Air Base on Nov. 2, 2008.
  20. The closure of the Muni has thrown a wrench into things. My understanding is that the project will be moving to the new museum building under construction at Villeneuve Airport. Last fall it looked like there had been some significant progress. http://www.rcafventura.ca/
  21. For the first time in 48 years, the Victoria Air Maintenance Mosquito got airborne today:
  • Create New...