Who cares about looking ridiculous when instead you might end up looking terminally dead? Blowing the slides is IMHO over the top and might get you charged with reckless endangerment and property damage regardless of whether your concerns were justified or not. Making a scene and refusing to sit down will get you the same result but with less liability. Or are FR pilots now under so much pressure to start at any cost that they would take off with a hysterical passenger on board? :\

Give me strength ...

Look again at the photo of the damage, and then at the photo linked in post #83.

Mr Boeing has helpfully provided those 4 static wicks on the outboard stabilizer (not the elevator) to help any of us with depth perception issues.

If that's not enough, read the CIAIAC report with its 4 references to the stabiliser being struck/damaged.

:ugh:

At the end of the day you have to ask yourself- If you see an incident out of an aircraft window as a passenger, how far can your protest go if you believe that the safety of the flight is in question?

You must have the right to refuse to fly and be returned to the gate if you honestly believe your life may be put at risk.

Cabin crew CRM must cover this area. Cabin crew should made aware that any reported defect seen on the outside of the aircraft should be immediately reported to the flight deck. It should also be recorded in the cabin crew flight report.

I recall that Nigel in one of his 777's taxied to and took off unintentionally from a very short intersection in St Kitts. Strangely enough, yet again an 'engineer' passenger advised the cabin crew during taxi that the aircraft was taxiing to the wrong runway entry point. Subsequently, a big song and dance was made as to how important it is to heed information eminating from the cabin as a reult of that cock up. It seems that this advice has not penetrated the ethos of Ryanair operations.

BA passengers tried to halt 777 take-off after taxiing error

On one of (countless) J41 trips, a sealing strip or mastic on the outside of the window I was next to gradually loosened and peeled off over the course of an hour. I told CC who alerted flight deck and on landing was thanked by CC for bringing it to their attention. Now it probably wasn't anything of concern but I didn't know that. The flight deck possibly even had a laugh at the SLF's ignorance.

At least to my face however they treated it seriously and that scores brownie points for me.

And the relevance of that comment to this thread is . . . ?

To instill thought of a sexist and chauvinistic nature. You might not care to say it, but I'm sure plenty have thought it.

...or is this the PC parade float passing by??

Either way both comments are irrelevant to the thread

You're right - both comments are irrelevant but
How sad. We have come nowhere in a thousand years.

Remove your seat belt, stand up and refuse to get back into your seat while taxying. That action will practically ensure a return to gate.......but you had better be damn sure that you are in the right.

If she WAS a female, what is she now? Has she been gender-reassigned as part of her demotion to FO?;)

Why 'had' you better be in the right? Surely any professional pilot/commander would be grateful that a passenger had drawn to her/his attention something that may threaten the safety of the flight, even if it transpired that the cause for alarm was ungrounded? Even if it causes a delay/inconvenience. Better to arrive late and alive than dead on time, surely?

The topic of 'what to do' as a pax was thoroughly explored on the thread about the Spanair Madrid crash where someone pointed out that a certain type/types? might correctly take-off without flap. It is an interesting thought. What to do then? There is a line between having every T D & H stopping a flight and a 'qualified' observer doing it.

Well, I'm sure no crew would be happy to be delayed by a nervous pax who thinks the wings will "fall off" because they're flexing up and down at every bump in the pavement. := If you actually act in a way that will force a return to gate for no good reason you might end up being escorted off premises by the police and later charged.

If you clearly witnessed a collision with another aircraft or ground structure or actually saw a piece fall off the wing than by all means act as crazy as you can in order to prevent the plane from taking off, even if you are not in a position to evaluate whether there was any actual damage and to what extent the damage might interfere with the safe operation of the aircraft. Any such occurrence needs to be properly investigated prior to the aircraft being returned to service. You cannot be blamed if upon later inspection it is determined that there was no damage or the extent of the damage did not make the aircraft unairworthy.

In general, full opposite deflection of ailerons is preferable to full deflection in the same direction. :)
Good on them for pulling out of line, I would do the same if somebody told me I had a problem with my aircraft. Not sure why they thought running flaps in and out would cure an aileron problem, maybe just do something to calm down an anxious passenger?

Elevators work the same way:

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r...5/IMG_0660.jpg

In 1990 several of us heard a noise from the top of the cabin of a BA 747 as it taxied at San Francisco airport.
It was a bang and then sounded like something was rolling around in for want of a better word the ceiling of the cabin.
The cabin crew were informed and one of them spoke to I presume the flight deck via the intercom. However the plane
just kept going but when it got to the end of the runway, lined up for take off it did it again. The intercom was used again
but the result was we just took off anyway and no announcement was made, all the cabin crew person said was "everything is in order"
There were several other slightly concerned passengers as well as myself but we all felt we had better just shut up and not say anything more.
As we landed it did it again but as we were safe on the ground no-one said a word.

Ok, I'm curious now. Why would the MD-8x have opposite deflecting elevators? This is a fly by REAL wires aircraft so I'm surprised that the mechanicals allow this deflection to occur. The picture shows a taxiing aircraft with flaps deployed so all hydraulic systems would be pressurised.... I'd call it if I saw that.

As previously mentioned, I remember seeing a F100 commence the take-off role and I commented to my Capt that he was clean (the F100...) and quick as a flash he said "aircraft rolling, check flap" to which they replied "thanks, we take-off clean".

If you see something as a pax or a crew you MUST highlight it. Period.

As ManaAdaSystem stated in his post #57, the ailerons and elevators on the DC-9 were operated by tabs so they could be hanging anywhere on the ground.

I flew the Short Belfast for many years and all of our control surfaces were controlled by servo tabs. So, when we took the control locks out, the rudder would normally follow whatever the surface wind was doing, both ailerons normally fell down and the elevators could be anywhere.

This used to cause all sorts of calls from the folks outside. On one occasion I was told several times by the aircraft behind me that both of my ailerons were hanging down. "Thank you" said I. "Are you going to go flying like that"? "Indeed we are" said I. Silence from behind.

All surfaces would normally streamline at 90 knots on take-off.

:\

Any occasions when they didn't? :eek:

Not that I remember; we had five control surface position indicators on the captain's glareshield so a quick glance would show where they all were.

A4, Yea, i flew the F100 for a few years and we regularly took off with no flap. It was quite common for the one behind to mention it to us as we lined up.