|
|
| Re: Accident (403424) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 6 of 8 |
||
|
| (403879) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri Jan 16 21:07:08 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by JayZeeBMT on Thu Jan 15 17:34:55 2009. The insurance will be cutting Wells Fargo a check. The aircraft, N106US, was a dry lease to US Air by Wells Fargo Bank Northwest NA Trustee. |
|
|
| (403880) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri Jan 16 21:09:25 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jan 15 19:10:46 2009. And just how did you reach that conclusion oh aviation expert? |
|
|
| (403894) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Fri Jan 16 22:03:49 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 16 20:07:42 2009. I think that I understood your point. That's why I asked a follow up question. |
|
|
| (403917) | |
Re: Accident (engines missing) |
|
|
Posted by South FERRY on Sat Jan 17 01:45:25 2009, in response to Accident, posted by cortelyounext on Thu Jan 15 15:46:24 2009. and already they're making excuses that their sonar equipment isn't strong enough to locate something 30 feet underwater.... WTF r submarines for then?@?@! |
|
|
| (403918) | |
Re: Accident (engines missing) |
|
|
Posted by South FERRY on Sat Jan 17 01:45:46 2009, in response to Accident, posted by cortelyounext on Thu Jan 15 15:46:24 2009. and already they're making excuses that their sonar equipment isn't strong enough to locate something 30 feet underwater.... WTF r submarines for then?@?@! |
|
|
| (403919) | |
Re: Accident (engines missing) |
|
|
Posted by South FERRY on Sat Jan 17 01:47:00 2009, in response to Re: Accident (engines missing), posted by South FERRY on Sat Jan 17 01:45:46 2009. I seriously expected them to whip up a crane and a flat barge and pull the bugger up (ala 207 Yard Weeks barge style). ...or is there an excuse coming for that, too?? |
|
|
| (403926) | |
Re: Accident (Coast Guard carmera, very detail video) |
|
|
Posted by GOLD_12th on Sat Jan 17 02:44:00 2009, in response to Accident, posted by cortelyounext on Thu Jan 15 15:46:24 2009. Link here to the video10 minute video. Camera is on the New Jersey side. Around 2 minutes and 02 seconds in the video, you can see the plane crash in the Hudson River at the camera angle. (3:31 pm ET) Camera zooms in to the plane at 2 minutes and 43 seconds in. Passengers are starting to come out. 1st of the NY Waterway ferry in the picture at around 3 minutes and 52 seconds. (3:32 pm near the Intrepid) Plane is drifting south. The first of the NY Waterway ferry boat reached the plane at 5 minutes and 55 seconds on video. (3:44 PM ET) |
|
|
| (403932) | |
Re: Accident (Coast Guard carmera, very detail video) |
|
|
Posted by GOLD_12th on Sat Jan 17 03:02:26 2009, in response to Re: Accident (Coast Guard carmera, very detail video), posted by GOLD_12th on Sat Jan 17 02:44:00 2009. |
|
|
| (403960) | |
Re: Accident (Coast Guard carmera, very detail video) |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 17 08:34:25 2009, in response to Re: Accident (Coast Guard carmera, very detail video), posted by GOLD_12th on Sat Jan 17 02:44:00 2009. Amazing! Thanks for posting that. |
|
|
| (403990) | |
Re: Accident (Coast Guard carmera, very detail video) |
|
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Sat Jan 17 11:06:35 2009, in response to Re: Accident (Coast Guard carmera, very detail video), posted by GOLD_12th on Sat Jan 17 02:44:00 2009. One thing that's quite evident from the video is how quickly the aircraft was drifting south along with the current.My LIRR/NYCT blog |
|
|
| (403992) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jan 17 12:00:35 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by R30A on Fri Jan 16 00:07:15 2009. Probably not my best answer to you. So let me rephrase. You obviously didn't understand the point I was trying to make. That's understandable. You then had two choices. You could have either acted like an adult and asked me to explain what I was intending to say or you could have acted like a kid and challanged my knowledge of the subject. We all know what you did and it's obvious why. |
|
|
| (404014) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 17 15:31:01 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by Train Dude on Sat Jan 17 12:00:35 2009. Your post was blatantly incorrect. Each flight is an independent event, and the success or failure of any other flight has absolutely no effect on the chances of a flight being successful(with some obviously unlikely exceptions, such as a plane's loss of engines resulting in it hitting another plane. Such would have a detrimental effect on the likelihood of a successful flight of the second plane) |
|
|
| (404016) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 17 15:46:52 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by R30A on Sat Jan 17 15:31:01 2009. Perhaps he understood what you said all along, and was trying to make a joke along the lines of "How do you prevent a bomb on an airplane - bring one of your own because the chances of two bombs are infinitesimally tiny".Or perhaps he really doesn't understand the basic principles of probability and statistics. We'll probably never find out. |
|
|
| (404023) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jan 17 17:18:36 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by R30A on Sat Jan 17 15:31:01 2009. Your interpretation of my post was blatantly incorrect, kid. |
|
|
| (404024) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by 3440 on Sat Jan 17 17:25:45 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 20:33:36 2009. Maybe some unknown person took the engine.BJC |
|
|
| (404026) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Sat Jan 17 17:52:56 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by mac5689 on Fri Jan 16 20:49:22 2009. I heard that one of them is still attached to the plane. |
|
|
| (404093) | |
Re: US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by Jeff Rosen on Sat Jan 17 21:50:00 2009, in response to Re: US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River), posted by JayZeeBMT on Thu Jan 15 17:26:02 2009. Damn birds!!! |
|
|
| (404096) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jan 17 22:10:59 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by MJF on Thu Jan 15 20:44:26 2009. It's more likely to happen in NY than anywhere else. |
|
|
| (404099) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jan 17 22:12:15 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by JayZeeBMT on Thu Jan 15 19:47:35 2009. Sure. Train is safer than plane. |
|
|
| (404100) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jan 17 22:13:11 2009, in response to Accident, posted by cortelyounext on Thu Jan 15 15:46:24 2009. If any pets died, the fatality streak is over. I just thought of this. |
|
|
| (404103) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jan 17 22:43:45 2009, in response to Accident, posted by cortelyounext on Thu Jan 15 15:46:24 2009. What's also interesting is how the pilot did not give an interview to the NTSB for almost 48 hours. Must have a good union, unlike TA, where the motorman would've written a G-2 within minutes of an incident. |
|
|
| (404104) | |
Re: US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Sat Jan 17 22:47:22 2009, in response to Re: US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River), posted by Jeff Rosen on Sat Jan 17 21:50:00 2009. I'm all COOPED up! LOL! |
|
|
| (404105) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Sat Jan 17 22:49:27 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jan 17 22:43:45 2009. The NTSB took 48 hours to go out and see him, not the other way 'round. Trust me, they will grill him until his head has been picked clean of every detail, no matter how small. |
|
|
| (404106) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jan 17 22:53:44 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sat Jan 17 22:49:27 2009. NY1 continues to say "If birds......" implying that perhaps birds had nothing to do with this.NTSB arrived Thursday night. So far, the only error he might have made was not pulling the "ditch switch" to make the plane float longer. That was announced tonight at the news conference. But check out NY1. They seem to dislike this pilot. |
|
|
| (404107) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Sat Jan 17 23:08:04 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jan 17 22:53:44 2009. When they start picking beaks and feathers out of the plane's engines, then NY1 will have to backpedal. Other networks are reporting that Capt. Sully DID activate the "ditch switch". The fact that the plane isn't at the bottom of the Hudson would seem to bear this out.From what I'm hearing, they have discovered the location of at least one engine. It is reasonable to think the plane barbecued a couple dozen geese, because Rikers Island, at the west end of Runway 4-22, is like a goose sanctuary. The geese are literally everywhere. |
|
|
| (404108) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jan 17 23:18:53 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sat Jan 17 23:08:04 2009. We're hearing different stories I guess. I watched both NTSB conferences today, and they said divers now claim one engine is attached to the right wing, and that things happened so fast, the pilots did not hit the "ditch switch". |
|
|
| (404109) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Jan 18 00:00:32 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jan 17 22:10:59 2009. Then fly out of Newark. |
|
|
| (404112) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 01:10:04 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by Easy on Sun Jan 18 00:00:32 2009. We're talking about driving.Hey, JetBlue is a non-union airline. Now I'm really afraid. |
|
|
| (404113) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Jan 18 01:16:53 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 01:10:04 2009. I see. I didn't read all the way back and thought that you were talking about NYC driving stressing out airline employees.Isn't JetBlue technically still a charter airline? They were the last time that I used them, but that's been over 3 years now. |
|
|
| (404115) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 01:29:20 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sat Jan 17 23:08:04 2009. Ty Chandler is the one doing all the damage. Her most current report is on NY1, where she continues to emphasize "if the plane hit birds" or "if the engines hit birds". She must hate |
|
|
| (404116) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 01:30:29 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by Easy on Sun Jan 18 01:16:53 2009. No. They're a real airline. I didn't even know they flew Sarah Palin's plane during the election too.Jetblue is as big in NY as Southwest is out in LA. |
|
|
| (404119) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Jan 18 01:41:49 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 01:30:29 2009. I guess that they were only a charter for the first few years after starting up. I vaguely recall that being typical for startup airlines.JetBlue is popular out here as well. They have most of the flights out of Long Beach and quite a few out of Burbank. For some reason they don't have any out of LAX. |
|
|
| (404121) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jan 18 01:44:47 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by AlM on Fri Jan 16 21:04:58 2009. Exactly. But he won't admit it. |
|
|
| (404122) | |
Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jan 18 01:46:03 2009, in response to Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 13:37:51 2009. No, that's not all you've said. Don't be dishonest. |
|
|
| (404123) | |
Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jan 18 01:46:29 2009, in response to Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident, posted by R33/R36 mainline on Fri Jan 16 17:55:55 2009. Actually it's not. You keep sinking lower and lower. |
|
|
| (404142) | |
Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 02:18:23 2009, in response to Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident, posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jan 18 01:46:03 2009. Nope. I scared to death of flying now. Especially after what happened on Thursday, after all we've been talking about here. Sure, driving is probably more dangerous, and I'll bet rail travel is too. But there's no turbulence on the rails or roads. I coughed up the dough for AMTRAK. It should be better than the non-union Jetblue crews. |
|
|
| (404144) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 02:22:35 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by AlM on Sat Jan 17 15:46:52 2009. No. Each time you fly, your chances of dying in a plane crash increase. The odds against dying in plane crash aren't 1-in-millions when you fly monthly, or more frequently. |
|
|
| (404145) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Jan 18 02:27:19 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 02:22:35 2009. No. The odds are what they are. Everyone on the plane has the same odds no matter how many times they have flown.However, if you're saying that that anyone planning on flying often has a greater risk than someone that flies infrequently then I agree. But it has nothing to do with what has happened in the past. |
|
|
| (404146) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 02:31:17 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by Easy on Sun Jan 18 02:27:19 2009. They fuck around with the stats by measuring your chances of dying "per takeoff" in many studies. This ends up giving the airline industry favorable numbers.So I'm driving on Sunday for sure. I was going to start on Monday, but I'm expecting huge crowds starting Monday for Obama on Tuesday, and I pass through DC. |
|
|
| (404148) | |
Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Jan 18 02:35:47 2009, in response to Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jan 15 18:37:47 2009. Sometime,your not suppose to be "in control".. |
|
|
| (404149) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Jan 18 02:45:59 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 02:31:17 2009. I think that you should drive. Do you have your car with you?DC will be crazy for the inauguration. I wouldn't mind being there, but I wouldn't fly across the country just for that. |
|
|
| (404154) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jan 18 06:38:12 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 02:22:35 2009. The odds against dying in plane crash aren't 1-in-millions when you fly monthly, or more frequently.Correct. If flying a commercial airliner is now at .03 deaths per 100 million passenger miles, then if you fly 10 million miles in your lifetime (which some businessmen do), your chance of dying in a commercial plane crash before you get to die of something else is somewhere around .003, or 0.3%. If you drive your car 10,000 miles a year for 60 years, always sober and carefully, you have about a 1 in 20,000 chance of dying each year, or also about .003, or 0.3%. The difference is that the one person has traveled 10 million miles and the other has traveled 600,000 miles in his lifetime. The frequent flyer is leading a lot more risky life in other ways too - he's probably a lot more likely to catch a serious illness and die of lack of proper medical care because he's too busy while traveling. My brother-in-law was a frequent flyer. Never had any close calls on a plane. He had a stroke on a business trip - he got decent care but not as good as he would have gotten at home just because it was a strange doctor, his wife and close colleagues weren't there to emphasize how unusual his behavior was (he would have gone to the doctor sooner if they had been), etc. |
|
|
| (404168) | |
Re: US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by TransitChuckG on Sun Jan 18 09:09:01 2009, in response to Re: US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River), posted by JayZeeBMT on Sat Jan 17 22:47:22 2009. One of Hitchcock's great movies. Thanks. |
|
|
| (404174) | |
Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by TransitChuckG on Sun Jan 18 10:38:55 2009, in response to Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jan 15 18:37:47 2009. While I know that driving is more dangerous, I feel helpless on a plane.You are convinced your are going to fly and die, and recent events have made this worse for you. I don't know who can help you, honesty. |
|
|
| (404176) | |
Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jan 18 10:46:31 2009, in response to Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 02:18:23 2009. No, that's not all you've said. Don't be dishonest.And no, Amtrak is not better than JetBlue for a NYC-FL trip. |
|
|
| (404177) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jan 18 10:47:14 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by Easy on Sun Jan 18 02:45:59 2009. I think he should fly. |
|
|
| (404181) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Jan 18 11:20:18 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jan 18 10:47:14 2009. He needs to pick one of the methods and move on. |
|
|
| (404200) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by petabread2 on Sun Jan 18 13:13:00 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by Easy on Sun Jan 18 11:20:18 2009. If he is afraid of flying, that's fine. He should just go with Amtrak and be done with it. People know the numbers, but fear is too much. As a pilot for 7 yrs, I can tell you I haven't had any close calls or anything that would be considered scary. Turbulence is common and isn't even considered in my "close call" stats. |
|
|
| (404203) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 13:16:18 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by petabread2 on Sun Jan 18 13:13:00 2009. You just lied. First you said you haven't had any close calls. Then in the next sentence you claim turbulence is not in your "close call" stats. WTF? You're mind fucking us. |
|
|
| (404206) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Jan 18 13:21:22 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 13:16:18 2009. Turbulence isn't a close call for me either. It's very normal and depending on where you start and stop is often expected. |
|
|
|
Page 6 of 8 |
||