It's often the case that more than one issue is a causational factor in an aircraft accident. The monthly AAIB reports often confirms this.
A strong northerly wind, a demanding Cat III approach in darkness, a failed or failing instrument panel. Bang! It happens to the fittest and most finest of aircrew.
Kegworth a case in point. It took off from Heathrow at night with one of BM's most experienced Captains at the controls. A catastrophic engine failure on climb out. Earlier ignored warnings about instrumentation. An emergency approach with one (failed) engine (the wrong one closed down IIRC) to East Mids.
It could have landed on Kegworth village but for the action of the crew on the flight deck...
Shit happens and it's only a matter time for Heathrow.
Boris knows. London has been extremely fortunate so far. When will the luck run out?
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Climate change / warming / cooling (delete as appropriate)
last reply
64 replies
2.3k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Sex God
Quote by GnV
It's often the case that more than one issue is a causational factor in an aircraft accident. The monthly AAIB reports often confirms this.
A strong northerly wind, a demanding Cat III approach in darkness, a failed or failing instrument panel. Bang! It happens to the fittest and most finest of aircrew.
Kegworth a case in point. It took off from Heathrow at night with one of BM's most experienced Captains at the controls. A catastrophic engine failure on climb out. Earlier ignored warnings about instrumentation. An emergency approach with one (failed) engine (the wrong one closed down IIRC) to East Mids.
It could have landed on Kegworth village but for the action of the crew on the flight deck...
Shit happens and it's only a matter time for Heathrow.
Boris knows. London has been extremely fortunate so far. When will the luck run out?
Keg worth was a perfect example of what I am talking about. The crash happened virtually on the boundary because the flight crew had utilised the aircraft s glide capability right down to final approach and it was only when the Capt tried to spool up the wrong engine to get into the landing configuration and arrest the sink that it crashed just short of the threshold. Had it "plummeted" to the ground ten miles from the airport, it would support the theory that London is in danger from overflying landing aircraft.
Quote by TH
it crashed just short of the threshold
900 metres to be exact - almost a kilometre short of the runway.
At Heathrow on the approach to 27L there are buildings not far short of 900m and a significantly sized car park on the approach to 27R with housing not far short of that not to mention the terminal buildings.
There are significant risks. They have been measured for sure but never underestimate the fact that the statisticians are human, after all.
Sex God
A similar landing accident not that long ago at Heathrow with a British Airways jet when the engines failed to respond. It landed hard, but within the perimeter.
Sex God
Fuck what wouldn't I give to be an aeronautics engineer. Or a maybe a ringmaster at the circus.
Sex God
Quote by Lost
Fuck what wouldn't I give to be an aeronautics engineer. Or a maybe a ringmaster at the circus.
Fortunately there are some very highly qualified people in this world whose good work ensures that airliners do not come unexpectedly plummeting out of the sky and dropping onto central London (and elsewhere). They are helped greatly in their task by the simple fact that all aircraft can glide as a basic feature of their very design.
Provided they are intact....
Remember Lockerbie?
Anyway. Enough of this doom and despondency making :gagged:
Back on topic, I read somewhere today that the levels of carbon dioxide at 400ppm is the same as it was 40 million years ago, before modern man as we know him ever set foot on Mother Earth!
Must have been from all those space ships creating crop circles...
Oh, yes. And the only big birds around were pterodactyls. *shivers*
Remember Lockerbie?
Anyway. Enough of this doom and despondency making :gagged:
Back on topic, I read somewhere today that the levels of carbon dioxide at 400ppm is the same as it was 40 million years ago, before modern man as we know him ever set foot on Mother Earth!
Must have been from all those space ships creating crop circles...
Oh, yes. And the only big birds around were pterodactyls. *shivers*
Sex God
Quote by Lost
Fuck what wouldn't I give to be an aeronautics engineer. Or a maybe a ringmaster at the circus.
:laughabove::laughabove:
Sex God
Quote by Too Hot
Fuck what wouldn't I give to be an aeronautics engineer. Or a maybe a ringmaster at the circus.
Fortunately there are some very highly qualified people in this world whose good work ensures that airliners do not come unexpectedly plummeting out of the sky and dropping onto central London (and elsewhere). They are helped greatly in their task by the simple fact that all aircraft can glide as a basic feature of their very design.
and boats float so they should never sink
Sex God
Correct.
Fear of flying is completely irrational and out of proportion to the risk. Boats sink when they get holed by rocks or icebergs or torpedoes. An aircraft will only fall out of the sky if a part of the structure were to fall off. This does not happen.
Most accidents involving aircraft are going to happen very close to the airfield and be as a consequence of engine failure on take off or landing.
Fear of flying is completely irrational and out of proportion to the risk. Boats sink when they get holed by rocks or icebergs or torpedoes. An aircraft will only fall out of the sky if a part of the structure were to fall off. This does not happen.
Most accidents involving aircraft are going to happen very close to the airfield and be as a consequence of engine failure on take off or landing.
Quote by Too Hot
Correct.
Fear of flying is completely irrational and out of proportion to the risk. Boats sink when they get holed by rocks or icebergs or torpedoes. An aircraft will only fall out of the sky if a part of the structure were to fall off. This does not happen.
Most accidents involving aircraft are going to happen very close to the airfield and be as a consequence of engine failure on take off or landing.
Sorry TH. By far too simplistic.
*again defers to Kegworth (torbofan blade detatched) and adds Air France Concorde at Paris *
Sex God
Quote by GnV
Correct.
Fear of flying is completely irrational and out of proportion to the risk. Boats sink when they get holed by rocks or icebergs or torpedoes. An aircraft will only fall out of the sky if a part of the structure were to fall off. This does not happen.
Most accidents involving aircraft are going to happen very close to the airfield and be as a consequence of engine failure on take off or landing.
Sorry TH. By far too simplistic.
*again defers to Kegworth (torbofan blade detatched) and adds Air France Concorde at Paris *
Which then resulted in engine failures.........
Sex God
Quote by Too Hot
Correct.
Fear of flying is completely irrational and out of proportion to the risk. Boats sink when they get holed by rocks or icebergs or torpedoes. An aircraft will only fall out of the sky if a part of the structure were to fall off. This does not happen.
Most accidents involving aircraft are going to happen very close to the airfield and be as a consequence of engine failure on take off or landing.
i dont think anyone has mentioned a fear of flying
most aircraft accidents are freaks and rare!! thankfully
all catastrophic accidents are the result of a series of bad decisions or ill informed decisions.
as aircraft don't make decisions then the chances are at some point or another a catastrophic accident WILL happen
or this one
a dented wing up there is just not the same you know
:rotflmao: a statment after a recent near miss
The Guild of Air Traffic Controllers attacked the increasing workload and pressure being put on flights' safety systems.
Public relations manager Bill Billing said: "Controllers at Heathrow are the cream of the profession and only the best go to Heathrow.
"They are under a lot of pressure, as are all controllers, due to the inexorable increase in air traffic movements. This was a genuine mistake. It was not someone trying to be smart, or clever or reckless. It was human error.
drum roll
tadaaaa
Quote by Too Hot
Correct.
Fear of flying is completely irrational and out of proportion to the risk. Boats sink when they get holed by rocks or icebergs or torpedoes. An aircraft will only fall out of the sky if a part of the structure were to fall off. This does not happen.
Most accidents involving aircraft are going to happen very close to the airfield and be as a consequence of engine failure on take off or landing.
Sorry TH. By far too simplistic.
*again defers to Kegworth (torbofan blade detatched) and adds Air France Concorde at Paris *
Which then resulted in engine failures.........
Very tenuous argument there TH.
A 737 will fly quite well with one engine. Engine failure was not the cause of the accident, pilot error was.
The Concorde flight ended when a fuel tank was ruptured from (alledgedly) debris on the runway before rotatiion. The resultant fuel leak was ignited by sparks from a severed electrical cable in the undercarriage well and the problem was taken in to the air. The resultant fire caused catastrophic failure to the airframe.
Fuel starvation is often a factor in in-flight emergencies for both heavies and light aircraft. I suppose you could argue that if the aircraft runs out of fuel, it causes engine failure... But no. The AAIB report would cite fuel starvation as the cause.
Stockport 1967, who'd have thought they wouldn't put enough juice in - just as well Stockport was still a wasteland so there was open land to crash on.
New York 2009 - hooray for the Hudson River.
I work under the Ringway flight path and I'm always pleased to see the tail of a plane - it means it's missed me again.
It will happen one day.
New York 2009 - hooray for the Hudson River.
I work under the Ringway flight path and I'm always pleased to see the tail of a plane - it means it's missed me again.
It will happen one day.
Sex God
Quote by northwest-cpl
Stockport 1967, who'd have thought they wouldn't put enough juice in - just as well Stockport was still a wasteland so there was open land to crash on.
New York 2009 - hooray for the Hudson River.
I work under the Ringway flight path and I'm always pleased to see the tail of a plane - it means it's missed me again.
It will happen one day.
1967 was nearly 50 years ago. There has been a wee bit of development since then, in both engineering and protocols. New York 2009 was caused by multiple bird ingestion. No engine can survive multiple birds crashing through it - if we made them strong enough they would be too heavy to take off. It is about minimising risk, never eliminating it altogether.
Your first example is too old to be a valid quote and the second one simply proves that with excellent people, even externally-caused damage doesn't have to kill the passengers.
Yes, planes do have non-injury 'incidents', and some have proper crashes - the sort that kill passengers. The chances of one happening right over your house- vanishingly small. If you are stressing about it, you need to seek help, not move house.
Sex God
Anyone fretting about the risk of dying in an air crash might want to read this.
Even 50 years ago I would have thought they were able to fill a plane up. I don't suppose evolution has eradicated human error in the last 50 years.
The original argument was that planes taking off or landing over heavily built up areas (central London) was an accident waiting to happen. A less skillful pilot might well have landed on the city rather than the river after he lost both engines in 2009.
As an aside, I'm not really frightened of a plane falling on my head - I can run fast.
The original argument was that planes taking off or landing over heavily built up areas (central London) was an accident waiting to happen. A less skillful pilot might well have landed on the city rather than the river after he lost both engines in 2009.
As an aside, I'm not really frightened of a plane falling on my head - I can run fast.
Actually foxy, you'd be surprised that little has changed in 50 years of aviation.
The new Dreamliner may have fancy electrical systems but it will still have the basic instrumentation provided in aircraft from over 50 years ago.
Indeed, from much longer ago than that!
You would do well to also also remember that there was never an improvement or replacement to Concorde which was first flown 44 years ago...
The new Dreamliner may have fancy electrical systems but it will still have the basic instrumentation provided in aircraft from over 50 years ago.
Indeed, from much longer ago than that!
You would do well to also also remember that there was never an improvement or replacement to Concorde which was first flown 44 years ago...
Sex God
GnV, I have long suspected you to be someone connected to the aviation world who set up business in France. I am doubting that now.
The banter was good... Even though a plane is not going to fall on London anytime soon.
The banter was good... Even though a plane is not going to fall on London anytime soon.
Sex God
oooops double post
Sex God
Stumbled across this recently and thought it quite illuminating ........ .
Sex God
Quote by gulsonroad30664
carbon tax. carbon tax offsets. goldman sachs. global warming. climate change. copenhagen. cat out of the bag. carbon footprint. glaciers melting. icecaps reducing. oceans rising.
absolute total load of bollox serving a political/taxation/population reduction agenda.
psuedo science bullshit.
totally proven in the collapse of the copenhagen accord when the russians challenged the data created by the u.n.'s centre for climate change studies at the east anglia universities goldman sachs funded research centre as having been corrupted and not the data that was collected.
i say again, if you reduce the carbon footprint of a continent like africa (reduce coal, parafin, diesel and any other manner of fossil fuel consumption), where the vast majority live at just subsistance level, you will kill them by the millions.
mans growth in numbers is directly proportionate to his increase in energy flux density per square mile/killometer and any decrease in that density will reduce the population.
now which naive phuckers amongst us is going to choose who is going to live and who is going to die ? none of us, the ruling elite will decide and you aint one of them !
note :- not conspiracy theory, not off a conspiracy website just common sense
Soo a long delay for response but ....as far as common sense goes,why ? Why does anyone imagine that the powers that be have to invent a global catastrophe to justify taxes ?? They never have before, why would they feel the need to invent a global catastrophe to justify wars and genocide?? They never have before. Why does anyone feel that world governments and their paymasters feel any urge whatsoever to justify their actions ? Sorry gulson but sometimes you do seem to have that gun pointed squarely at your foot
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
carbon tax. carbon tax offsets. goldman sachs. global warming. climate change. copenhagen. cat out of the bag. carbon footprint. glaciers melting. icecaps reducing. oceans rising.
absolute total load of bollox serving a political/taxation/population reduction agenda.
psuedo science bullshit.
totally proven in the collapse of the copenhagen accord when the russians challenged the data created by the u.n.'s centre for climate change studies at the east anglia universities goldman sachs funded research centre as having been corrupted and not the data that was collected.
i say again, if you reduce the carbon footprint of a continent like africa (reduce coal, parafin, diesel and any other manner of fossil fuel consumption), where the vast majority live at just subsistance level, you will kill them by the millions.
mans growth in numbers is directly proportionate to his increase in energy flux density per square mile/killometer and any decrease in that density will reduce the population.
now which naive phuckers amongst us is going to choose who is going to live and who is going to die ? none of us, the ruling elite will decide and you aint one of them !
note :- not conspiracy theory, not off a conspiracy website just common sense
Soo a long delay for response but ....as far as common sense goes,why ? Why does anyone imagine that the powers that be have to invent a global catastrophe to justify taxes ?? They never have before, why would they feel the need to invent a global catastrophe to justify wars and genocide?? They never have before. Why does anyone feel that world governments and their paymasters feel any urge whatsoever to justify their actions ? Sorry gulson but sometimes you do seem to have that gun pointed squarely at your foot
global warming is now changed to "climate change"
wether (pun) it be climate change, the war on terror, poor ole "democracy seeking" armed syrian rebels from all over the middle east, europe, chechnia, england or america fighting the badies who we should continue arming, training and paying al la "al nursra and al ciader" and supporting with a safe haven "no fly zone" on the jordanian border inside syria al la "libya" is all lies and deceptions in the interests of a global geopolitical stratergy to maintain western and american hegemony.
the latest lie and deception being the claim that the syrian regime has used chemical weapons against its own people. why would the assad regime do that when they are in the accendency in the war against the foreign backed murderous mercenaries who even resort to canabilism ? total mass media propaganda and lies. why would william haig, darling of margeret thatcher give a fuck about the syrian people when he has never given a fuck about the british people ? he does'nt.
because the breakup and disintergration of the syrian state and its degeneration into sectarian religeous violence serves the intersts (divide and rule) of western governments and corporations to and pillage natural resources and contain russian, indian and chinese trade with occupation or a compliant (slave puppet)regime on the way to taking out iran.
throughout history, all governments of all colours have propagandised with lies and deceptions to gain popular support for expansion into and subjugation of countries and their peoples for economic power and control. look up sarkozy's ex foreign minister saying "he discussed war in syria for regime change with british officials 4 years ago"
was the world not told by colin powell at the united nations that iraq had weapons of mass destruction ? were you not told that 17 saudi's and 1 kuwaiti carried out 9/11 so they invaded afghanistan ? were you not told that ghaddaffi was bombing his own people but the russians with observing satellites say that they observed no evidence of that? were you not told by al gore that the seas would rise and most coastal towns would be submerged while he bought a 5 million dollar house on the san francisco sea front ?
were you not told that if you ring the doctor or n.h.s. helpline and tell them you sneezed that you would be diagnosed by the non clinical answerer that you had avian/swine sumthin flu, not to answer the door and youir prescription would be passed through the letter box ?
governments make policy and decisions in the interests of the most powerful interests in society not the interests of society if and when they can get away with it.
the "new labour" party privatised air traffic control, introduced tuition fees (debt) and privatised the infrastructure of schools and education, the n.h.s. and all manner of state operated activity through the "private finance initiative"
in who's interests did that serve, the people or the city of london's spiv's and bankers ?
tory bliar said we gotta go to war cos saddam could hit british interests in cyprus in 45 minuets with weapons of mass destruction.
cameron and haig say we gotta take assad out cos he's gassing his own people.
lies lies lies again.
i could write reams and reams of proven lies by these murderous theives and decievers and so could you staggers so why do you believe anything they say ?
Sex God
Because the case for climate change is not being made by government -most if not all of whom are in the pockets of oil companies,who's interests aren't served by the debate- but by Scientists : the idea that climate change is a revenue/warmongering construct is contradictory to say the least
Sex God
It never ceases to amaze me, the things people worry about insofar as their survival is concerned. Often things which we can't control specifically. If you get in a 'plane you trust to the pilot and other individuals, if you ride a taxi you put your trust in the driver.
If you have bareback sex with a stranger? That's between the two of you, but do you think flying's more risky?
If you have bareback sex with a stranger? That's between the two of you, but do you think flying's more risky?
Sex God
Quote by skinny
It never ceases to amaze me, the things people worry about insofar as their survival is concerned. Often things which we can't control specifically. If you get in a 'plane you trust to the pilot and other individuals, if you ride a taxi you put your trust in the driver.
If you have bareback sex with a stranger? That's between the two of you, but do you think flying's more risky?
don't go there!! ...........did you not read up you'll start him off again :scared:
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Because the case for climate change is not being made by government -most if not all of whom are in the pockets of oil companies,who's interests aren't served by the debate- but by Scientists : the idea that climate change is a revenue/warmongering construct is contradictory to say the least
climate change equals carbon tax equals revenue
scientists who's research is being funded by goldman sachs ref "east anglia university corrupting data to show global warming when the earth is actually cooling"
goldman sachs owns the first trading desk in chicago that trades in carbon tax offsets
governments put carbon taxes on your energy bills
international oil companies pay very little tax but collect it on behalf of governments.
the sun and its cycles (solar cycles) has infinitely more effect on global temperatures and pails mans consumption of carbon fuels effect into insignificance by comparison.
the reduction in consumption worldwide of carbon based fossil fuels due to the worldwide downturn in activity due to the economic crisis (approx 30%) is far greater than the change to more greaner energy.
the case for climate change is not being made by governments ? really staggers, you amaze me.
if you take a continent like africa and reduce its carbon footprint, you will commit mass genocide.
Sex God
Quote by gulsonroad30664
Because the case for climate change is not being made by government -most if not all of whom are in the pockets of oil companies,who's interests aren't served by the debate- but by Scientists : the idea that climate change is a revenue/warmongering construct is contradictory to say the least
climate change equals carbon tax equals revenue
scientists who's research is being funded by goldman sachs ref "east anglia university corrupting data to show global warming when the earth is actually cooling"
goldman sachs owns the first trading desk in chicago that trades in carbon tax offsets
governments put carbon taxes on your energy bills
international oil companies pay very little tax but collect it on behalf of governments.
the sun and its cycles (solar cycles) has infinitely more effect on global temperatures and pails mans consumption of carbon fuels effect into insignificance by comparison.
the reduction in consumption worldwide of carbon based fossil fuels due to the worldwide downturn in activity due to the economic crisis (approx 30%) is far greater than the change to more greaner energy.
the case for climate change is not being made by governments ? really staggers, you amaze me.
if you take a continent like africa and reduce its carbon footprint, you will commit mass genocide.
So on the strength of one company allegedly funding one research project you condemn all the other scientists working in the field ?? Well so much for balanced reasoned argument .....
Governments pay lip service to the idea of carbon taxes whilst charging to grab any remaining fossil fuel;,Iraq,Afghanistan,and Libya are Cases in point not fought for any reasons of climate change but in the rush to grab oil,you've heard of Haliburton I'm sure,so who holds the reins ??Goldman Sachs? Haliburton? Some shadowy figure who can not be named??
Yes government likes an excuse to tax something ... this in no way discredits those many scientists/climatologists who believe mankind is having a severely detrimental effect on the planets climate .I strongly suggest you look at the vastly different nature of scientific debate and political rhetoric .. One requires facts figures and evidence the other merely whatever I'll informed contradictory opinion one cares to spew out
I don't think you'll find many climatologists who would deny the effect of many natural cycles on our climate I suggest that you'll find many who would tell you that human activity is an accelerator and amplifier of many of these effects ... The argument is not that any one thing acts alone but that the sum of many things act in concert.
I'm glad to amaze you ...I'd also be glad to see where any government has done anything other make 'appropriate' noises about climate change and actually followed through with action
Africa...should you care to look most proposals on carbon emissions actually allow for an increase in emissions from third world countries.
Climate change is a SCIENTIFIC theory it has not been disproved by counter theory in fact very few of those working in the field have found reason to contradict it .... In short any political debate attempting 'disprove' any SCIENTIFIC theory is worthless, we are not dealing with opinion but with evidence .... You're coming at it from totally the wrong angle, or do you want to tell me how Keynes disproves string theory ?? You are not alone in your amazement .... See that way over there on the Sun ? That little spot? That's the point .... See by how far you're missing it?
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Because the case for climate change is not being made by government -most if not all of whom are in the pockets of oil companies,who's interests aren't served by the debate- but by Scientists : the idea that climate change is a revenue/warmongering construct is contradictory to say the least
climate change equals carbon tax equals revenue
scientists who's research is being funded by goldman sachs ref "east anglia university corrupting data to show global warming when the earth is actually cooling"
goldman sachs owns the first trading desk in chicago that trades in carbon tax offsets
governments put carbon taxes on your energy bills
international oil companies pay very little tax but collect it on behalf of governments.
the sun and its cycles (solar cycles) has infinitely more effect on global temperatures and pails mans consumption of carbon fuels effect into insignificance by comparison.
the reduction in consumption worldwide of carbon based fossil fuels due to the worldwide downturn in activity due to the economic crisis (approx 30%) is far greater than the change to more greaner energy.
the case for climate change is not being made by governments ? really staggers, you amaze me.
if you take a continent like africa and reduce its carbon footprint, you will commit mass genocide.
So on the strength of one company allegedly funding one research project you condemn all the other scientists working in the field ?? Well so much for balanced reasoned argument .....
Governments pay lip service to the idea of carbon taxes whilst charging to grab any remaining fossil fuel;,Iraq,Afghanistan,and Libya are Cases in point not fought for any reasons of climate change but in the rush to grab oil,you've heard of Haliburton I'm sure,so who holds the reins ??Goldman Sachs? Haliburton? Some shadowy figure who can not be named??
Yes government likes an excuse to tax something ... this in no way discredits those many scientists/climatologists who believe mankind is having a severely detrimental effect on the planets climate .I strongly suggest you look at the vastly different nature of scientific debate and political rhetoric .. One requires facts figures and evidence the other merely whatever I'll informed contradictory opinion one cares to spew out
I don't think you'll find many climatologists who would deny the effect of many natural cycles on our climate I suggest that you'll find many who would tell you that human activity is an accelerator and amplifier of many of these effects ... The argument is not that any one thing acts alone but that the sum of many things act in concert.
I'm glad to amaze you ...I'd also be glad to see where any government has done anything other make 'appropriate' noises about climate change and actually followed through with action
Africa...should you care to look most proposals on carbon emissions actually allow for an increase in emissions from third world countries.
Climate change is a SCIENTIFIC theory it has not been disproved by counter theory in fact very few of those working in the field have found reason to contradict it .... In short any political debate attempting 'disprove' any SCIENTIFIC theory is worthless, we are not dealing with opinion but with evidence .... You're coming at it from totally the wrong angle, or do you want to tell me how Keynes disproves string theory ?? You are not alone in your amazement .... See that way over there on the Sun ? That little spot? That's the point .... See by how far you're missing it?
sorry staggers, i do not accept that all other scientists or many of them subscribe to global warming/climate change or, verified it,as a consequence of mans activity, then why did the united nations centrte for global climate studies, funded by goldman sachs (the east anglia university) corrupt the data collected worldwide to show global warming as exposed at the copenhagen conference.
one of the issues that arose was that the third world would not be exempt from a reduction in carbon emissions.
i will be glad for us to agree to differ staggers as it maintains the dedate. i believe it to be a con, you believe it to be true based on proven scientific theory. lets hope we both live long enough to find out which one of us is right. regards
