Air India bashing - gone too far?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by lord spandex masher
Well, perhaps you didn't mean to write it as such but...
Quote:
I wonder how many other errors have been made because someone was diligently scanning outside in cruise rather than monitoring inside.
...implies that scanning outside precludes the ability to also look inside. Or, for clarity, "rather than" means "And not".
Therefore, your implication is that one and not the other can be carried out. Further implying that you can't, or won't, do both.
Nothing wrong with my understanding of your sentence as it was written.
Quote:
I wonder how many other errors have been made because someone was diligently scanning outside in cruise rather than monitoring inside.
...implies that scanning outside precludes the ability to also look inside. Or, for clarity, "rather than" means "And not".
Therefore, your implication is that one and not the other can be carried out. Further implying that you can't, or won't, do both.
Nothing wrong with my understanding of your sentence as it was written.
Nor does 'rather than' mean 'and not'. 'Rather than' is an alternative, 'and not' is a collective....
Anyway - Mark I Eyeball is best. TCAS is ok. Sleep on the flightdeck is approved at many carriers! Broadsheets beat tabloids for blocking out the sun! Flying in India is sh1te, especially in the monsoon! If you travel around India on holiday take the train, don't fly!
This I believe sums up the thread so far
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,124
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
It's not worth the effort WK. A brief review of previous posts by the strange-named one shows a very condescending attitude followed by the usual insults. We see a refusal to admit error. That is dangerous actually. Likely a quite knowledgeable type but not nearly as good as he thinks he is. We all see this type on occasion. I enjoy seeing him have to get the last word in.
Bottom line, how many cruise altitude midairs have there been. The odds are infinitesimal to begin with. And of the very few, how many would have actually been prevented by a near continuous scan. Not the Brasil one. Uberlingen, who knows? The TCAS worked properly. Obviously after a TA, one crew should be looking outside.
An object on a collision course does not move and at high speeds without a contrail, not likely to be seen in day. There can be low closure rate midairs. There was a near midair over the Atlantic many years ago between a Delta and Continental that were in the same direction. That is where a scan is likely to save the day. But once again, nowadays, TCAS will almost certainly let you know.
Flying in an area where there might be reason to suspect something different?(military stuff perhaps), then common sense, as always, prevails. Being anal retentive is for those few that are that way.
But.....seeing as some say that there is too much reliance on automation and computers, perhaps now that I have finished my snooze and the paper, I will click off the autopilot and hand-fly the rest of the way. After all, one has to be professional
.
Bottom line, how many cruise altitude midairs have there been. The odds are infinitesimal to begin with. And of the very few, how many would have actually been prevented by a near continuous scan. Not the Brasil one. Uberlingen, who knows? The TCAS worked properly. Obviously after a TA, one crew should be looking outside.
An object on a collision course does not move and at high speeds without a contrail, not likely to be seen in day. There can be low closure rate midairs. There was a near midair over the Atlantic many years ago between a Delta and Continental that were in the same direction. That is where a scan is likely to save the day. But once again, nowadays, TCAS will almost certainly let you know.
Flying in an area where there might be reason to suspect something different?(military stuff perhaps), then common sense, as always, prevails. Being anal retentive is for those few that are that way.
But.....seeing as some say that there is too much reliance on automation and computers, perhaps now that I have finished my snooze and the paper, I will click off the autopilot and hand-fly the rest of the way. After all, one has to be professional
.
Last edited by punkalouver; 11th Jun 2011 at 01:47.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...We see a refusal to admit error. That is dangerous actually...
Here's the link...
Rather Than
...to this definition:
rather than
conj.
And not: "Gibson guitarswith their carved tops and necks that are fitted and glued to the body, rather than bolted on are expensive to make" (Joshua Rosenbaum).
prep.
Instead of: "diseases in which the immune system plays the villain rather than the protector" (Sandra Blakeslee).
I wonder if you will continue to refuse to admit your own error.
Bottom line, how many cruise altitude midairs have there been.
The odds are infinitesimal to begin with.
And of the very few, how many would have actually been prevented by a near continuous scan
An object on a collision course does not move and at high speeds without a contrail, not likely to be seen in day.
But once again, nowadays, TCAS will almost certainly let you know.
Flying in an area where there might be reason to suspect something different?(military stuff perhaps), then common sense, as always, prevails. Being anal retentive is for those few that are that way.
But.....seeing as some say that there is too much reliance on automation and computers, perhaps now that I have finished my snooze and the paper, I will click off the autopilot and hand-fly the rest of the way.
Ignoring the poor English then perhaps you could clarify what you actually mean by
I wonder how many other errors have been made because someone was diligently scanning outside in cruise rather than monitoring inside.
By the way this is not about trying to get the last word in it's called a discussion. You know, argument and counter argument and if you feel insulted then get a thicker skin.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,124
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
Thanks Green Granite. It appears since the advent of TCAS that there have been two midairs in the high flight levels in cruise. Neither would have been prevented by this near continuous scan idea.
I'm not sure how many billions of flights there have been in this time period from when TCAS was introduced to the present day so I can't answer the ridiculous odds question posed by the strange-named one, I should think my statement of the odds being infinitesimal are fairly accurate though.
And as a matter of interest to the statement that more midairs have been prevented than created by this very important scan...Here is a link to a midair between airliners caused by someone taking evasive action in the thought that there was a collision risk(when in fact there wasn't) and ceated a collision.
1965 Carmel mid-air collision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Conclusions: Misjudgment of altitude separation by the crew of EA 853 because of an optical illusion created by the up-slope effect of cloud tops resulted in an evasive maneuver and a reactionary evasive maneuver by the TW 42 crew).
Another example of your misinterpretationstatements(which I know you are passing on to your employer) is shown below with your direct response below my statement:
An object on a collision course does not move and at high speeds. Without a contrail, not likely to be seen in day.
All the more reason for a good lookout then. But of course you can see them, I saw dozens today with and without contrails.
You saw dozens of objects on a collision course today? I think not.
And I don't think my sarcasm is lower than your regular insults. It was just to show how a statement you made, once again did not make sense. I await your having to get the last word in again.
I'm not sure how many billions of flights there have been in this time period from when TCAS was introduced to the present day so I can't answer the ridiculous odds question posed by the strange-named one, I should think my statement of the odds being infinitesimal are fairly accurate though.
And as a matter of interest to the statement that more midairs have been prevented than created by this very important scan...Here is a link to a midair between airliners caused by someone taking evasive action in the thought that there was a collision risk(when in fact there wasn't) and ceated a collision.
1965 Carmel mid-air collision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Conclusions: Misjudgment of altitude separation by the crew of EA 853 because of an optical illusion created by the up-slope effect of cloud tops resulted in an evasive maneuver and a reactionary evasive maneuver by the TW 42 crew).
Another example of your misinterpretationstatements(which I know you are passing on to your employer) is shown below with your direct response below my statement:
An object on a collision course does not move and at high speeds. Without a contrail, not likely to be seen in day.
All the more reason for a good lookout then. But of course you can see them, I saw dozens today with and without contrails.
You saw dozens of objects on a collision course today? I think not.
And I don't think my sarcasm is lower than your regular insults. It was just to show how a statement you made, once again did not make sense. I await your having to get the last word in again.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This guy also 'relied upon TCAS'. He even left it there in the descent into Dhaka until FL200 when my teddy went overboard. This is Biman Bangladesh.
He was/is an experienced skipper with thousands of hours on the DC10 - who's learned nothing.
They're cowboys. Try flying with some of pilots from the sub-continent if you want to see why we have CRM training. . .
He was/is an experienced skipper with thousands of hours on the DC10 - who's learned nothing.
They're cowboys. Try flying with some of pilots from the sub-continent if you want to see why we have CRM training. . .
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neither would have been prevented by this near continuous scan idea.
Good. Secondly, how can you possibly know that these two collisions wouldn't have been prevented by scanning outside? The answer you are looking for is you don't. You show astounding arrogance and ignorance if you're happy to state such things.
A ridiculous odds question. Why is it so ridiculous, you proclaim that the odds are infintesimal yet cannot, when asked, prove it either way with hard facts. I would go so far to say that you have made a ridiculous odds statement yet will accept the facts if you can produce them.
You can find one incident caused by an optical illusion which resulted in a collision. You think because of this that it's ok for nobody to look outside. A basic thought process at best.
which I know you are passing on to your employer
You saw dozens of objects on a collision course today? I think not.
It was just to show how a statement you made, once again did not make sense
As far as insulting you goes if you can please quote them in your next missive and I will gladly apologise.
Finally, do you have a problem with me responding to you on this thread? It's just that to have a discussion, chat or argument a response is required. Yet you keep banging on about me having the final word. I couldn't care less if I do or not and I'm not stopping anybody (I wouldn't even if I could), including you, responding after me.
Last edited by Lord Spandex Masher; 11th Jun 2011 at 19:44.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,124
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
- You mean that you are not scanning outside contiuously, how unprofessional. A midair collision in cruise might just happen when you let your guard down. There have been hundreds of millions of flights in the last decade with at least two midairs and you don't scan continuously. Unbelievable. Unprofessional. How long have you been willing to go without scanning outside?
-I would go so far to say that you have made a ridiculous odds statement
Can you quote the actual odds?
- I must have been mistaken in an earlier statement. I didn't realize that you were on dozens of collision courses while in cruise, which is of course what I have been talking about all along. You must cruise along in extremely, extremely busy airspace.
-I'm glad you now feel that the statement about the employer is "an ignorant statement" and "barely worthy of a response". I thought so when you initiated that statement earlier in the thread. That is why I made sarcastic quotes about it. Which of course is better than insults.
-1600 km/h closure rate in the Brazil collision. How long were they visible to each other. Not long. And studies have shown that the average time to see, recognize, react and actually have the aircraft move is over 12 seconds. Sorry strange-named man, no arrogance or ignorance on my part. Just the usual facts. Uberlingen... A slower closure rate with some sort of light out there at night to be seen. Bottom line is...you ain't gonna know what avoidance manouver to make till fairly close. Of course proper TCAS procedures will work.
- Anal retentiveness...absolutely. I feel sorry for your passengers and your Captain. Starting the stopwatch for the response time.
-I would go so far to say that you have made a ridiculous odds statement
Can you quote the actual odds?
- I must have been mistaken in an earlier statement. I didn't realize that you were on dozens of collision courses while in cruise, which is of course what I have been talking about all along. You must cruise along in extremely, extremely busy airspace.
-I'm glad you now feel that the statement about the employer is "an ignorant statement" and "barely worthy of a response". I thought so when you initiated that statement earlier in the thread. That is why I made sarcastic quotes about it. Which of course is better than insults.
-1600 km/h closure rate in the Brazil collision. How long were they visible to each other. Not long. And studies have shown that the average time to see, recognize, react and actually have the aircraft move is over 12 seconds. Sorry strange-named man, no arrogance or ignorance on my part. Just the usual facts. Uberlingen... A slower closure rate with some sort of light out there at night to be seen. Bottom line is...you ain't gonna know what avoidance manouver to make till fairly close. Of course proper TCAS procedures will work.
- Anal retentiveness...absolutely. I feel sorry for your passengers and your Captain. Starting the stopwatch for the response time.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You mean that you are not scanning outside contiuously, how unprofessional. A midair collision in cruise might just happen when you let your guard down. There have been hundreds of millions of flights in the last decade with at least two midairs and you don't scan continuously. Unbelievable. Unprofessional. How long have you been willing to go without scanning outside?
-I would go so far to say that you have made a ridiculous odds statement
Can you quote the actual odds?
Can you quote the actual odds?
- I must have been mistaken in an earlier statement. I didn't realize that you were on dozens of collision courses while in cruise, which is of course what I have been talking about all along. You must cruise along in extremely, extremely busy airspace.
-I'm glad you now feel that the statement about the employer is "an ignorant statement" and "barely worthy of a response". I thought so when you initiated that statement earlier in the thread. That is why I made sarcastic quotes about it. Which of course is better than insults.
-1600 km/h closure rate in the Brazil collision. How long were they visible to each other. Not long. And studies have shown that the average time to see, recognize, react and actually have the aircraft move is over 12 seconds.
Sorry strange-named man, no arrogance or ignorance on my part. Just the usual facts.
Uberlingen... A slower closure rate with some sort of light out there at night to be seen. Bottom line is...you ain't gonna know what avoidance manouver to make till fairly close.
Of course proper TCAS procedures will work.
- Anal retentiveness...absolutely. I feel sorry for your passengers and your Captain.
Starting the stopwatch for the response time.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,124
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
For the peace of mind for everyone else, I will stop the enjoyment of using your own quotes about employers and odds in my replies to you along with all else including my sarcastic but not insulting remarks.
While you continue with your continuous scanning(probably while IMC as well), I am going to put the autopilot back on and go for a snooze. I think that I will be quite refreshed for descent and landing while you are no doubt quite tired from scanning and likely repeatedly insulting your fellow crewmembers.
I assume then that you will have the last post. It took only 30 minutes last time to reply. Start timing.
Strange name.
While you continue with your continuous scanning(probably while IMC as well), I am going to put the autopilot back on and go for a snooze. I think that I will be quite refreshed for descent and landing while you are no doubt quite tired from scanning and likely repeatedly insulting your fellow crewmembers.
I assume then that you will have the last post. It took only 30 minutes last time to reply. Start timing.
Strange name.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hold on before you run off.
Continuous scanning or scanning outside continuously? There's a big difference. You seem to be getting confused between the two.
You're also confused about the meaning of the word insult. Maybe you should look it up, for your peace of mind.
Again you're assuming things about me that you cannot possibly know and stating them as facts. Still getting more and more foolish.
You've also failed to respond to any of my points or questions in my last post. Counter argument?
What was that? Ten minutes?
It'll only be the last post if you don't bother replying, which you won't.
Continuous scanning or scanning outside continuously? There's a big difference. You seem to be getting confused between the two.
You're also confused about the meaning of the word insult. Maybe you should look it up, for your peace of mind.
Again you're assuming things about me that you cannot possibly know and stating them as facts. Still getting more and more foolish.
You've also failed to respond to any of my points or questions in my last post. Counter argument?
What was that? Ten minutes?
It'll only be the last post if you don't bother replying, which you won't.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hold on before you run off.
Continuous scanning or scanning outside continuously? There's a big difference. You seem to be getting confused between the two.
You're also confused about the meaning of the word insult. Maybe you should look it up, for your peace of mind.
Again you're assuming things about me that you cannot possibly know and stating them as facts. Still getting more and more foolish.
You've also failed to respond to any of my points or questions in my last post. Counter argument?
What was that? Ten minutes?
It'll only be the last post if you don't bother replying, which you won't.
Continuous scanning or scanning outside continuously? There's a big difference. You seem to be getting confused between the two.
You're also confused about the meaning of the word insult. Maybe you should look it up, for your peace of mind.
Again you're assuming things about me that you cannot possibly know and stating them as facts. Still getting more and more foolish.
You've also failed to respond to any of my points or questions in my last post. Counter argument?
What was that? Ten minutes?
It'll only be the last post if you don't bother replying, which you won't.
But I sure wouldn't want to be stuck with the guy in spandex for any extended period of time. Hope you don't do longhaul.
Give it a rest.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had maybe a dozen RAs during my time. Followed 8 of them exactly, managed to avoid the other traffic by turning (TCAS does not allow for that) for the others. One was into JFK against a small VFR airplane that drove me down to almost 1000 feet before I gave up and reversed into a climb, the TCAS went ballistic but I could not see the need to fly my airplane (747) into the ground. I tried to trust the TCAS but never did completely.
Flew for several Asian carriers that covered their windscreens during the day, never liked it. During double crew if I was support would tear the paper down when I came on the flight deck, both sides, was not popular for that.
Before TCAS was on a flight Singapore to London and asked for FL280 approaching Himalayas from Kabul and got it. As I climbed, real dark night, I saw some light flashing above. I got a stiff neck trying to keep it in sight but was concerned enough to stop my climb and look carefully. It was a Speedbird 747 immediately above, maybe 100 feet or so. If I had done what most of that company's pilots did in keeping the cockpit floodlight on, I would never have seen it. 800 people could have died?
Many Asian carriers also turn off their external lights and close the window blinds as well. Makes their airplanes impossible to see. One reason for the KAL007 disaster. The Russian pilot could not identify the 747 as civilian because it had no lights showing.
Flying Westbound over Canada one night with an experienced local FO, I dimmed the cockpit lights so I could watch the Aurora. It was superb. After half an hour, during which time I called the cabin crew up to see it, the FO said to me "what is that?" He had, over the course of about 6 years flying that route, never seen it because the cockpit floodlights were always kept on at night, totally destroying the crew's ability to see anything outside, including other airplanes.
In my years of airline flying, I became aware that airplanes often come close to each other without the crews being aware of it. The big sky does protect airplanes, even when flown by fools.
Even though I had discounts on the fares, I never allowed my family to fly on those carriers, would rather pay full fare on a carrier I trusted.
Still, what you don't know can't hurt you, right?
Flew for several Asian carriers that covered their windscreens during the day, never liked it. During double crew if I was support would tear the paper down when I came on the flight deck, both sides, was not popular for that.
Before TCAS was on a flight Singapore to London and asked for FL280 approaching Himalayas from Kabul and got it. As I climbed, real dark night, I saw some light flashing above. I got a stiff neck trying to keep it in sight but was concerned enough to stop my climb and look carefully. It was a Speedbird 747 immediately above, maybe 100 feet or so. If I had done what most of that company's pilots did in keeping the cockpit floodlight on, I would never have seen it. 800 people could have died?
Many Asian carriers also turn off their external lights and close the window blinds as well. Makes their airplanes impossible to see. One reason for the KAL007 disaster. The Russian pilot could not identify the 747 as civilian because it had no lights showing.
Flying Westbound over Canada one night with an experienced local FO, I dimmed the cockpit lights so I could watch the Aurora. It was superb. After half an hour, during which time I called the cabin crew up to see it, the FO said to me "what is that?" He had, over the course of about 6 years flying that route, never seen it because the cockpit floodlights were always kept on at night, totally destroying the crew's ability to see anything outside, including other airplanes.
In my years of airline flying, I became aware that airplanes often come close to each other without the crews being aware of it. The big sky does protect airplanes, even when flown by fools.
Even though I had discounts on the fares, I never allowed my family to fly on those carriers, would rather pay full fare on a carrier I trusted.
Still, what you don't know can't hurt you, right?
"Had maybe a dozen RAs in my time"
I think maybe someone up there is trying to tell you something. I never had one in my time (lot's of TAs but no RAs). I think if I had had a dozen RAs, I would have quit early!
I think maybe someone up there is trying to tell you something. I never had one in my time (lot's of TAs but no RAs). I think if I had had a dozen RAs, I would have quit early!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
grimmrad
I may put forward an educated guess here that the skin cancer rate in pilots is rather due to the increased amount of cosmic radiation (high energy gamma rays)
rather than the UV light which is filtered out by first the actual windshield
The sun is a much ill-respected daytime sky object. It is a big occupational hazard for pilots, and one that has yet to be really investigated, understood or even acknowledged. Medical professionals try to collect data, but the airlines block their attempts (no pun intended).
ECAM Actions.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not sure the punters would agree with you.
Yes I had lots of TCAS RAs because it was a new device, initially it had teething problems.
GPWS also, including warnings of terrain when overflying another 747 going the other way 2000 feet below. Could be annoying if we were both going the same direction and I was stuck overhead the other airplane for a minute or more.
The radiation that causes the most risk to flight crews passes through paper, does it not?
Yes I had lots of TCAS RAs because it was a new device, initially it had teething problems.
GPWS also, including warnings of terrain when overflying another 747 going the other way 2000 feet below. Could be annoying if we were both going the same direction and I was stuck overhead the other airplane for a minute or more.
The radiation that causes the most risk to flight crews passes through paper, does it not?
The windshield does not filter UV.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...f&AD=ADA471609
It does filter, but not as well as plexiglass, there is still a risk.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me try and sum up.
"You can teach a
to ride a bicycle but you will never teach it to read and obey road signs" 
You can teach certain people to fly an aircraft/computer but it can be almost impossible to teach them airman ship/common sense.
This is where nepotism etc., kicks in. A lot of these persons are not selected on merit. A lot are selected because they have come from families who have the clout to get them what they want but not necessarily what some of them deserve.
This all, is the fruits of corruption.
"You can teach a
to ride a bicycle but you will never teach it to read and obey road signs" You can teach certain people to fly an aircraft/computer but it can be almost impossible to teach them airman ship/common sense.
This is where nepotism etc., kicks in. A lot of these persons are not selected on merit. A lot are selected because they have come from families who have the clout to get them what they want but not necessarily what some of them deserve.
This all, is the fruits of corruption.
