|
|
| Re: Accident (403424) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 8 |
||
|
| (403712) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Fri Jan 16 07:07:36 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by Easy on Thu Jan 15 19:19:56 2009. I don't understand how my computer works either, but I'm not afraid of it. ;)Your computer's gonna kill you!!! |
|
|
| (403713) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Fri Jan 16 07:14:40 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by Dan Lawrence on Thu Jan 15 22:10:58 2009. Run streetcars for 40 years, you develop a "sixth sense" about drivers on the road with you, since you can't exactly swerve out of their way.At least any idiot who collides with a streetcar will always lose. |
|
|
| (403720) | |
Re: REEF the crashed's airplane? |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Jan 16 08:35:15 2009, in response to Re: REEF the crashed's airplane?, posted by R33/R36 mainline on Thu Jan 15 22:26:32 2009. Investigations. Right now, that plane is in control of the NTSB. When the investigations are finished, probably in two years, I expect the plane to be broken up in the hangar; there is no way that the plane could even be flown to a scrapyard like the Mojave Spaceport. |
|
|
| (403731) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jan 16 09:30:35 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by Train Dude on Thu Jan 15 22:52:09 2009. Hence, each successive flight without a fatal accident, raises the liklihood that there will be a fatal airline accident.Time for a refresher course in statistics. :) |
|
|
| (403736) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Jan 16 10:35:45 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by AlM on Fri Jan 16 09:30:35 2009. Ayup.But if it gets him to ride Amtrak more, it's OK. So I'm biased... |
|
|
| (403740) | |
Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Fri Jan 16 10:47:46 2009, in response to Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River), posted by Easy on Thu Jan 15 22:13:13 2009. I don't know that he had as much control as you imply. It isn't like he had the ability to make the plane climb -- though I believe he probably had the ability to impact the rate of descent. |
|
|
| (403743) | |
Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jan 16 11:11:34 2009, in response to Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River), posted by Charles G on Fri Jan 16 10:47:46 2009. I don't know that he had as much control as you imply. It isn't like he had the ability to make the plane climb -- though I believe he probably had the ability to impact the rate of descent.At a given speed and configuration of flaps, etc., a plane has a lift/drag ratio. IIRC commercial airlines are around 7 (maybe a bit higher with the flaps fully extended). The lowest possible rate of descent of an unpowered airplane is the reciprocal of that ratio, i.e., about 1 foot of descent for every 7 feet of forward motion. Very small planes have much higher ratios, IIRC around 14, and gliders still higher. A supersonic fighter might be around 3. |
|
|
| (403748) | |
Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Jan 16 11:31:12 2009, in response to Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River), posted by AlM on Fri Jan 16 11:11:34 2009. Good point."A supersonic fighter might be around 3." Depends which one. The F-104's lift/drag ratio might be different than the F-14's which wings fully swept to 72 degrees, while the same F-14's ratio might change with the wing sweep reduced. Drag is reduced with the wings swept back but lift is increased with them swept forward. The F-18's profile is somewhat different still. |
|
|
| (403765) | |
Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jan 16 13:01:53 2009, in response to Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River), posted by AlM on Fri Jan 16 11:11:34 2009. Sounds good. |
|
|
| (403766) | |
Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 13:12:31 2009, in response to Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River), posted by Easy on Thu Jan 15 22:13:13 2009. 900 ft is alot of room for a pilot. |
|
|
| (403767) | |
Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by cortelyounext on Fri Jan 16 13:12:57 2009, in response to Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River), posted by AlM on Fri Jan 16 11:11:34 2009. At the risk of being overly technical, the A320, depending on weight, airspeed, environmental conditions, configuration, and flightpath, is actually closer to twice that, around 15. Anyway, good points by you... |
|
|
| (403768) | |
Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 13:15:18 2009, in response to Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident, posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jan 15 21:26:33 2009. You're the biggest idiot on this board. Everyone has you pegged as an arrogant piece of shit troll, who thinks he knows everything. Your wife married a real fucking loser. Even she can come here and see what an asshole you act like. |
|
|
| (403769) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 13:16:32 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by DaRidgewoodBusbuff on Thu Jan 15 20:27:25 2009. It's known for short runways and tight clearances on landing. |
|
|
| (403770) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 13:18:35 2009, in response to Accident, posted by cortelyounext on Thu Jan 15 15:46:24 2009. Well, at around 11p last night, I went down to Battery Park to see the plane. I could only see the top of the left wing, as they're showing on NY1. No way I'd miss seeing this in person. No doubt the right wing is damaged in the position it's in. It's located right at Warren St. |
|
|
| (403771) | |
Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jan 16 13:23:22 2009, in response to Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 13:15:18 2009. LOL. I must have really struck a nerve. Though I see I've started getting through to you, as you admitted that driving is just as dangerous. Though now you are blaming your fear on a lack of control. Um, you can't control the cars around you on the rode either. Any one of them can hit you. And in the case of an airplane, in case something goes wrong, you have a trained and certified pilot IN CONTROL. He'll do a much better job of controlling the airplane than you ever would if you got your wish to have more control over the plane. |
|
|
| (403772) | |
Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 13:24:47 2009, in response to Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jan 16 13:23:22 2009. Now you'll do what you do best-get this thread reefed with your flaming. |
|
|
| (403773) | |
Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jan 16 13:28:42 2009, in response to Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 13:24:47 2009. No, I'm telling it like IT IS. If you believe otherwise, by all means explain your rational argument.And if the thread gets reefed, that will be YOUR fault. |
|
|
| (403774) | |
Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jan 16 13:30:40 2009, in response to Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jan 16 13:23:22 2009. *road |
|
|
| (403775) | |
Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 13:37:51 2009, in response to Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jan 16 13:28:42 2009. All I said is that I'm afraid of flying, and left JFK airport fearing a plane crash was bound to happen in NY very soon. One did. How does that make me a troll or idiot? |
|
|
| (403777) | |
Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jan 16 13:55:09 2009, in response to Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River), posted by cortelyounext on Fri Jan 16 13:12:57 2009. At the risk of being overly technical, the A320, depending on weight, airspeed, environmental conditions, configuration, and flightpath, is actually closer to twice that, around 15.Maybe I've just remembered wrong. It's been years since I've dealt with aerodynamics. If the A320 can have a ratio as high as 15, probably all commercial airplanes can have a roughly comparable ratio. 1/14 = 7% and 1/7 = 14%, so I may have confused the fraction and the percentage. |
|
|
| (403780) | |
Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 14:01:43 2009, in response to Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River), posted by AlM on Fri Jan 16 13:55:09 2009. But do any of these stats count when the engines are dead?I know that when I fly, we usually fly at 35,000 ft, and begin to descend 25 mins before landing. When landing at JFK, we're at 1,500 ft, then on the runway in minutes. |
|
|
| (403782) | |
Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jan 16 14:03:47 2009, in response to Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River), posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 14:01:43 2009. But do any of these stats count when the engines are dead?Yes. One foot drop per 15 feet (the corrected number) horizontal motion is the glide path when the engines are dead. With the engines on, theplan doesn't have to lose altitude at all. |
|
|
| (403785) | |
Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 14:10:09 2009, in response to Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River), posted by AlM on Fri Jan 16 14:03:47 2009. I went down to Warren St. late last night to see the plane. You should too since you live in NYC.If you really want to see interesting landings, keyword Kai-tak on youtube. Amazing stuff. |
|
|
| (403787) | |
Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by Jeff Rosen on Fri Jan 16 14:29:42 2009, in response to Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River), posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 15 21:59:55 2009. When I first saw the title I thought it meant the President. (GWB) |
|
|
| (403788) | |
Re: Accident (What about the First Officer?) |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Jan 16 15:13:28 2009, in response to Accident, posted by cortelyounext on Thu Jan 15 15:46:24 2009. With all the accolades being given to the captain of Flight 1549, I have yet to hear one word about the First Officer. Flying and handling a jet like the A320 is a job for two, regardless of which pilot is actually flying at any given time. Even if Capt. Sullenberger was the pilot flying (PF) at the time of the forced landing, the pilot not flying (PNF) is assisting him, calling out altitude and speed, setting the flaps, etc.AFAIK, they haven't even named the F/O. IMHO, he deserves just as much praise as the captain, as does the entire flight crew. |
|
|
| (403790) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Jan 16 15:13:57 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 13:18:35 2009. A damaged wing is the least of that planes problems... |
|
|
| (403791) | |
Re: Accident (What about the First Officer?) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 15:14:31 2009, in response to Re: Accident (What about the First Officer?), posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Jan 16 15:13:28 2009. They are starting to give him credit too. |
|
|
| (403792) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 15:15:08 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Jan 16 15:13:57 2009. Well, they want to get it out in one piece, and they're trying to figure out how. |
|
|
| (403797) | |
Re: US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by lbt 9415 on Fri Jan 16 15:29:14 2009, in response to Re: US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River), posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jan 15 15:49:34 2009. Good job by the USAir flight crew in putting the airbus down. |
|
|
| (403799) | |
Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Jan 16 15:30:35 2009, in response to Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 13:37:51 2009. While I think your fear of flying is irrational, I will give you that you have mentioned this "there will be a crash in NY for about a month now", although it could all be a coincidence.http://www.subchat.com/otchat/read.asp?Id=395579 http://www.subchat.com/otchat/read.asp?Id=394146 |
|
|
| (403800) | |
Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 15:34:26 2009, in response to Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Jan 16 15:30:35 2009. LOL. Each time I was right within hours. Kind of creepy. And I've never done this before. It's costing me money. |
|
|
| (403803) | |
Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Jan 16 15:36:49 2009, in response to Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 15:34:26 2009. Send us tonight's lottery numbers! |
|
|
| (403807) | |
Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by Jeff Rosen on Fri Jan 16 15:56:51 2009, in response to Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 13:37:51 2009. With your fear of flying, maybe you should watch this episode of the Bob Newhart Show. (And it could be "on topic" as the beginning credits has a Chicago el) |
|
|
| (403812) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 16:28:57 2009, in response to Accident, posted by cortelyounext on Thu Jan 15 15:46:24 2009. Looks like the wife of the pilot is a hot "mature". She seems to be about five years beyond the MILF bracket. She even makes tv appearances showing people how to stay fit. |
|
|
| (403825) | |
Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by Jeff Rosen on Fri Jan 16 17:49:23 2009, in response to Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 15:34:26 2009. Who's gonna win the 8th race at Aqueduct tomorrow? |
|
|
| (403830) | |
Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by R33/R36 mainline on Fri Jan 16 17:55:55 2009, in response to Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 13:15:18 2009. Good post. 10/10. |
|
|
| (403832) | |
Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Fri Jan 16 18:02:49 2009, in response to Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River), posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 14:10:09 2009. If you really want to see interesting landings, keyword Kai-tak on youtube. Amazing stuff.And guess which currently open airport was mentioned as the next worst by the Economist magazine... |
|
|
| (403834) | |
Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Fri Jan 16 18:05:55 2009, in response to Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident, posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Jan 16 15:36:49 2009. Just bet on the third favorite in a horse race. If it loses, double your stake on the third favorite in the next race. Continue until you win. |
|
|
| (403837) | |
Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 18:09:02 2009, in response to Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River), posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Fri Jan 16 18:02:49 2009. LGA? But what do they base it on? |
|
|
| (403850) | |
Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Fri Jan 16 19:06:34 2009, in response to Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River), posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 18:09:02 2009. No, LHR, because it has massive aeroplanes flying over a densely-populated area at low altitudes. |
|
|
| (403858) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 16 20:06:36 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by R30A on Fri Jan 16 00:07:15 2009. Coming from you that's obvious praise, kid. |
|
|
| (403859) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 16 20:07:42 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by AlM on Fri Jan 16 09:30:35 2009. Perhaps you and others didn't understand the point I was trying to make. Not important though. |
|
|
| (403863) | |
Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by mac5689 on Fri Jan 16 20:23:46 2009, in response to Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River), posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 15 21:59:55 2009. i've seen the flight plan in Newsday, and the plane wasn't shown as going directly over the GWB. but i don't know if that is right.FOX News had a computer simulation of what may have happen but it didn't show the ground much so i wouldn't know if it did go over the GWB. |
|
|
| (403864) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by mac5689 on Fri Jan 16 20:27:44 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 15:15:08 2009. they'll take it out in half if they have to. but the NTSB would love to have it in one piece if they could.have they found the engines yet, last time i heard they were still looking. |
|
|
| (403866) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 20:33:36 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by mac5689 on Fri Jan 16 20:27:44 2009. The engines were still missing as of an hour ago. |
|
|
| (403869) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 20:36:51 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 16 20:07:42 2009. They don't want to understand. They want to flame threads with insults, and broad statements. |
|
|
| (403870) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 16 20:39:19 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 20:36:51 2009. Usual M-O for the liberal mentality |
|
|
| (403873) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by mac5689 on Fri Jan 16 20:49:22 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 20:33:36 2009. i wonder if they will ever find them. |
|
|
| (403876) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri Jan 16 21:03:22 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by cortelyounext on Thu Jan 15 18:57:26 2009. I would think a bird of any appreciable size (such as a goose) hitting the chicken wire at anything more than 150-200mph would dislodge the grate and knock it into the engine. Then instead of a bird carcass which is usually easily chopped up by the fan it's a bird carcass followed by metal debris which is guaranteed to destroy the fan, compressor, and turbine blades, as well as the combustion chamber.It is common for some helicopters, such as the Eurocopter Dauphin, to be equipped with a wire mesh grate over the turbine intake. But then its top speed is less than 200mph and the intake is far smaller than a CFM56's intake. |
|
|
| (403877) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jan 16 21:04:58 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 16 20:07:42 2009. Perhaps you and others didn't understand the point I was trying to make. Not important though.You were either trying to make a joke (which was my interpretation at first) or else you just don't understand probability and statistics (which is another possibility). Either way, this sentence is simply incorrect: "Hence, each successive flight without a fatal accident, raises the likelihood that there will be a fatal airline accident. " That's not how probability works. |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 8 |
||
