|
|
| Re: Accident (By the numbers) (403424) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 7 of 8 |
||
|
| (404207) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 18 13:22:48 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by Easy on Sun Jan 18 13:21:22 2009. Actually most flights you get a little bit. Sometimes worse than others depending on the conditions, etc....but it's a normal part of flying, and nothing to be fearful of. It happens on just about every flight to some extent. |
|
|
| (404208) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 13:24:18 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by Easy on Sun Jan 18 13:21:22 2009. But read what that guy says. He says he was a pilot who never had a close call, then says he has a list of close calls, but does not include turbulence. I caught him in a lie.www.turbulenceforecast.com I'm watching it all day. I'm booked to fly tonight, but if those clouds over Pittsburgh make it to NY later, I'm driving. |
|
|
| (404210) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 13:25:11 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 18 13:22:48 2009. I've been on bumpless flights. |
|
|
| (404212) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 18 13:26:03 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 13:25:11 2009. So have I, but most have a little bit to an extent. I have been on more flights that had it (even if extremely minor) than that didn't. |
|
|
| (404217) | |
Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Sun Jan 18 13:34:27 2009, in response to Re: Will D. = Aviation TROLL! Re: Accident, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 16 13:37:51 2009. Both |
|
|
| (404220) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Sun Jan 18 13:38:18 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 13:24:18 2009. It's not a lie. He said he hasn't been in anything he'd consider a close call. He doesn't consider turbulence to be a close call.His last statement Turbulence is common and isn't even considered in my "close call" stats. he probably should have replaced the word "stats" with "list". That's the way I read it. Not a mindfuck. |
|
|
| (404223) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by petabread2 on Sun Jan 18 13:41:32 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 18 13:26:03 2009. What I was saying is that I don't consider turbulence as a close call! I was just trying to make it clear that I have had no close calls, and some people I know who are afraid of flying consider turbulence as potential accident to happen. |
|
|
| (404227) | |
Re: Accident (Close Calls) |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Jan 18 13:50:02 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by petabread2 on Sun Jan 18 13:41:32 2009. Are you a commercial pilot - your initial post did not make that clear?My wife and I did have a close call back in 1972. We were on a PanAm flight #2 to London (B-747) when we had a major enjine failure over Montauk (IIRC). We made an emergency landing back at JFK. Tense - yes but it never caused me to dislike flying which, to this date, I still love to do. I've had a couple of other minor incidents over the years so I guess I'd be interested in what you call a close call and how does that compare to what the average passenger would view a close call? |
|
|
| (404231) | |
Re: US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Sun Jan 18 13:56:24 2009, in response to Re: US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River), posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jan 15 16:00:15 2009. Spare us the "we" shit. You paranoid wortless turd. |
|
|
| (404232) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 18 13:56:53 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by petabread2 on Sun Jan 18 13:41:32 2009. I wasn't criticizing what you said. I was more against Luch's irrationality when it comes to flying. He always mentions how "dangerous" flying is, and always uses "turbulence" as one of the things making it so dangerous, but obviously it isn't as it's a almost a normal occurance, so obviously not dangerous. |
|
|
| (404236) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 14:06:04 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 18 13:56:53 2009. I'm not irrational. Exaggerated? Yes. Obsessed? Yes. But based on everything that's been going down lately(no pun intended), my fears are anything but irrational.Continental in Denver. US Airways in NYC. See you at the next crash thread. |
|
|
| (404238) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Jan 18 14:07:39 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 14:06:04 2009. You should start a thread about every driving fatality until that happens. Just for comparisons sake. |
|
|
| (404239) | |
Re: US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Sun Jan 18 14:08:04 2009, in response to Re: US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River), posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jan 15 16:31:19 2009. 
|
|
|
| (404241) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 14:14:01 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by Easy on Sun Jan 18 14:07:39 2009. Irrelevant. Flying fucking sucks. |
|
|
| (404242) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 18 14:15:10 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 14:14:01 2009. Ok. |
|
|
| (404250) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by petabread2 on Sun Jan 18 15:37:40 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 18 14:15:10 2009. To traindude, yes I am an airline pilot but I would rather keep the info private. I hope you can understand that. |
|
|
| (404252) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 15:49:15 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by petabread2 on Sun Jan 18 15:37:40 2009. how do you feel about Jetblue pilots not being union? |
|
|
| (404253) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Jan 18 15:49:40 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by petabread2 on Sun Jan 18 15:37:40 2009. Absolutely understood - especially around here! |
|
|
| (404319) | |
Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 18 18:45:33 2009, in response to 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. Oh crap, I didn't even notice that, but it's the right initials! |
|
|
| (404323) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 18 18:47:22 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jan 17 22:12:15 2009. I think more people in this country were hurt/killed in train accidents this year than plane accidents. |
|
|
| (404325) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Jan 18 18:49:22 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 18 18:47:22 2009. And that's just Metrolink. :( |
|
|
| (404342) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Sun Jan 18 19:03:38 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 14:06:04 2009. Your fear of flying is irrational and your posts show it. |
|
|
| (404346) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 18 19:04:47 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jan 17 22:13:11 2009. I wouldn't put pets on the same level as human beings, but I haven't heard if there were any pets on the plain. I believe it's unlikely any pets were on board this plane, as During extreme temperature swings in the midst of winter and summer, most airlines ban shipping pets as cargo. This certainly would have been one of those times.And even so, as far as US Airways is concerned, they don't accept pets in their cargo compartments at all, except for some shuttle flights in exception cities: http://www.usairways.com/awa/content/traveltools/specialneeds/pets.aspx |
|
|
| (404358) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jan 18 19:18:28 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 18 19:04:47 2009. I haven't heard if there were any pets on the plainThey might turn feral, if they were. |
|
|
| (404372) | |
Re: Missed GWB by 900 Ft US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by TransitChuckG on Sun Jan 18 19:31:06 2009, in response to 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. When I first saw the title I thought it meant the President. (GWB)GWB only has a few days left. |
|
|
| (404376) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 18 19:39:28 2009, in response to Re: Accident, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jan 18 18:47:22 2009. Correct. (in 2008 anyway)LuchAAA is taking a bigger risk by taking the train or driving then just getting on the plane. |
|
|
| (404390) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jan 18 19:56:06 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by Easy on Sun Jan 18 13:21:22 2009. Turbulence isn't a close call for me either. I expect it on any flight I'm on. If there is none, well that's just great. |
|
|
| (404391) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jan 18 19:56:23 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 13:24:18 2009. he didn't lie |
|
|
| (404392) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jan 18 19:56:29 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 13:16:18 2009. he didn't lie |
|
|
| (404393) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jan 18 19:56:37 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by petabread2 on Sun Jan 18 13:13:00 2009. excellent post |
|
|
| (404394) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jan 18 19:57:04 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by petabread2 on Sun Jan 18 13:41:32 2009. I understood what you meant. |
|
|
| (404395) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jan 18 19:58:03 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 14:14:01 2009. Nope. If you're gonna make a thread about every plane crash, and you admit that driving is more dangerous, then you should be making a thread about every car crash, or just stop talking about plane crashes. |
|
|
| (404583) | |
Re: GOOD NEWS: FAA reports all passengers/crew safely rescued |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Jan 19 02:41:25 2009, in response to Re: GOOD NEWS: FAA reports all passengers/crew safely rescued, posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri Jan 16 07:02:43 2009. And the Thomas Jefferson. |
|
|
| (404591) | |
Re: GOOD NEWS: FAA reports all passengers/crew safely rescued |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jan 19 07:08:58 2009, in response to Re: GOOD NEWS: FAA reports all passengers/crew safely rescued, posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Jan 19 02:41:25 2009. that one was mentioned in the news like crazy |
|
|
| (404757) | |
Re: GOOD NEWS: FAA reports all passengers/crew safely rescued |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Jan 19 15:24:53 2009, in response to Re: GOOD NEWS: FAA reports all passengers/crew safely rescued, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Jan 19 07:08:58 2009. Yeah I don't know how I forgot it, it seems to be a favorite of the Port Imperial-Midtown ferry crew. |
|
|
| (404758) | |
Re: Accident (By the numbers) |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Mon Jan 19 15:25:04 2009, in response to Re: Accident (By the numbers), posted by LuchAAA on Sun Jan 18 15:49:15 2009. meh |
|
|
| (404832) | |
Re: US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Mon Jan 19 20:15:49 2009, in response to Re: US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River), posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jan 15 15:49:34 2009. Now it's coming out that the plane had problems with the right engine compressors about a week ago, on the same route, just after leaving LGA. Fucking dangerous man. |
|
|
| (404835) | |
Re: US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Jan 19 20:48:21 2009, in response to Re: US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River), posted by LuchAAA on Mon Jan 19 20:15:49 2009.  your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (405406) | |
Re: US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jan 21 18:30:23 2009, in response to Re: US Airways Accident (crashed in Hudson River), posted by Fred G on Mon Jan 19 20:48:21 2009. No Fred, I don't think that's the kind of bird they're going to find in the engine. |
|
|
| (657529) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by cortelyounext on Tue Aug 31 11:12:08 2010, in response to Accident, posted by cortelyounext on Thu Jan 15 15:46:24 2009. Another Catastrophe Averted... Barely |
|
|
| (657555) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Tue Aug 31 12:35:14 2010, in response to Re: Accident, posted by cortelyounext on Tue Aug 31 11:12:08 2010. Fucking birds. B7 them all |
|
|
| (657578) | |
Re: Accident |
|
|
Posted by cortelyounext on Tue Aug 31 13:08:21 2010, in response to Re: Accident, posted by FYBklyn1959 on Tue Aug 31 12:35:14 2010. |
|
|
| (657871) | |
Update(Re: Accident) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 31 21:37:12 2010, in response to Accident, posted by cortelyounext on Thu Jan 15 15:46:24 2009. US Airways nearly crashed again.story here including flames shooting from the engines |
|
|
| (657874) | |
Re: Update(Re: Accident) |
|
|
Posted by 9 local on Tue Aug 31 21:44:03 2010, in response to Update(Re: Accident), posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 31 21:37:12 2010. They didn't nearly crash: they made a controlled emergency landing at DCA with no injuries.Plus, why the necropost? |
|
|
| (657877) | |
Re: Update(Re: Accident) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 31 21:45:33 2010, in response to Re: Update(Re: Accident), posted by 9 local on Tue Aug 31 21:44:03 2010. Check your e-mail. |
|
|
| (657883) | |
Re: Update(Re: Accident) |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Tue Aug 31 21:59:33 2010, in response to Re: Update(Re: Accident), posted by 9 local on Tue Aug 31 21:44:03 2010. Because Luch lives for this stuff, that's why the necropost. |
|
|
| (657885) | |
Re: Update(Re: Accident) |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Aug 31 22:04:42 2010, in response to Re: Update(Re: Accident), posted by 9 local on Tue Aug 31 21:44:03 2010. This necropost thing is getting out of hand, imo. |
|
|
| (657917) | |
Re: Update(Re: Accident) |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Aug 31 22:31:06 2010, in response to Update(Re: Accident), posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 31 21:37:12 2010. Knock it off, Olog. The necroposts, not the engine. |
|
|
| (657974) | |
Re: Update(Re: Accident) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 1 00:14:35 2010, in response to Re: Update(Re: Accident), posted by 9 local on Tue Aug 31 21:44:03 2010. Check your email, buddy. You have email down there at Rutgers, right? |
|
|
| (657976) | |
Re: Update(Re: Accident) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Sep 1 00:15:08 2010, in response to Re: Update(Re: Accident), posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 31 21:45:33 2010. Right on! Thanks! I can use your support every time he posts. Go for it! |
|
|
|
Page 7 of 8 |
||