titanic fight - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

chazola · #46 01-21-2005, 05:52 PM

what was all this I read about lasers? was that real or just media hype?

VollkommenWar · #47 01-21-2005, 05:57 PM

Not sure Chazola. They arrested one guy for doing it. Never heard anymore after that. He got his kicks doing that crap. Now he is going to Disneyland for several years.

The missles are only acurate up to around 10k feet. So you can relax up there in the clouds. Hope that gives at least a little peace of mind.

azimuth · #48 01-21-2005, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chazola

We make the wings here in Britain, which of course is the best bit of the plane. The bits that break are undoubtably the French parts.

you're not making me feel any better about flying chazola......

azimuth · #49 01-21-2005, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

No commercial airliners (other than those flown by ElAl) have anti-missile protection, AFAIK.

If one of our friends wants to take out an airliner during landing or takeoff, they are basically sitting ducks. Our senator, Mr. Chuck Shumer, has pressured the administration to provide funds to equip all U.S. commercial airliners with suitable devices to protect against these missiles (about 1M per aircraft). So far, his words have fallen on deaf ears in the administration. They are much too busy trying to prevent older women from carrying toenail clippers onto aircraft.

Unfortunately, it's going to take a shoulder fired missle to bring an airliner down in the U.S. before the administration wakes up to the threat. This administration is good at that.

you nailed it Brian, they are big sluggish targets. not hard to hit, were one so inclined. too bad our boarders are so pourous, allowing for ample opportunity.......

aren't those new EU built planes kinda big?

Brian Carlton · #50 01-21-2005, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azimuth

you nailed it Brian, they are big sluggish targets. not hard to hit, were one so inclined. too bad our boarders are so pourous, allowing for ample opportunity.......

aren't those new EU built planes kinda big?

The A380 is quite a large airplane and would make a fine target. But, if you sit yourself down about 2000 feet from the departure end of the runway, you can easily take out a 100 passenger airplane with the missile. I don't know if any of you fellows have sat off the departure or arrival end of a runway at a big airport, but these airliners are huge pieces of equipment when viewed from underneath.

Sitting ducks. Every one of them.

Botnst · #51 01-21-2005, 08:12 PM

Airlines should upgrade their planes to anti missile defense? Just means a billion dollars of 'somebody's" money spent on upgrade and then the terrorists go somewhere else. That'd be a cool way to defeat us: Make us upgrade to incredibly expensive proportion every potential target.

Here's a better way to protect from terrorists: Kill terrorists early and often.

Brian Carlton · #52 01-21-2005, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Airlines should upgrade their planes to anti missile defense? Just means a billion dollars of 'somebody's" money spent on upgrade and then the terrorists go somewhere else.

It's six billion dollars, not a billion.

And, yes, it's your money and my money. But, the government is currently spending considerably more than this amount to frisk women and children at airports, when there is a zero threat to hijack an airliner. The cockpit doors are now reinforced so that nobody is getting through one of them.

The money would be much better spent on these anti-missile defense systems because it is far easier to take one of these airliners out with a missile than it is to hijack one of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Here's a better way to protect from terrorists: Kill terrorists early and often.

Now, I would have expected something far more intelligent and eloquent than this from you, Bot.

Gilly · #53 01-21-2005, 08:24 PM

Old joke around the airport used to be that the FAA stands for Federal Administration Agency (just administers rules, doesn't have anything to do with flying). The one that says the press hasn't gotten an aviation story correct since 1903 is a good one too.
My mother once asked my brother-in-law where the safest place to be in an aircraft, the front, back, or middle. My brother in law is a pretty funny guy, and had been in the USAF for 21 years in various capacities (crew chief, load master on C130's in Nam, maintenance, etc. He thought about it (or seemed to) for several minutes and replied "I think probably in the bathroom, they bolt those in pretty tight".

Gilly

Botnst · #54 01-21-2005, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

It's six billion dollars, not a billion.

And, yes, it's your money and my money. But, the government is currently spending considerably more than this amount to frisk women and children at airports, when there is a zero threat to hijack an airliner. The cockpit doors are now reinforced so that nobody is getting through one of them.

The money would be much better spent on these anti-missile defense systems because it is far easier to take one of these airliners out with a missile than it is to hijack one of them.

Now, I would have expected something far more intelligent and eloquent than this from you, Bot.

Kill terrorists early and often is succinct and pretty-well rounds-out my policy of dealing with people who want me dead.

A agree with anybody who criticizes TSA. In my agency mgmt are all civil service employees and workers are mostly contract. This allows the gov to grow and shrink as needs arise--a flexibility unavailable through civil service. I believe the original intent of TSA was a similar arrangement. Instead, they're all civil service employees. So the whole lot of them is protected, calcifying the agency and preventing rapid adjustment to changing threats.

That was the long way of saying that granny is going to be frisked until TSA workers retire, even if we bag every terrorist on the planet.

I understand about the AA concern. If we make airlines impregnable terrorists will just move to trains or ships or elementary schools. By switching from one threat avenue to another faster than we can adjust we will throw billions of money behind the threat.

Cheaper to hunt them down and kill them. There's no recidivism from a dead terrorist.

Brian Carlton · #55 01-21-2005, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilly

The one that says the press hasn't gotten an aviation story correct since 1903 is a good one too.

That is the honest truth. It doesn't matter what story they report and it does not matter how simple they report it, every single story that I have read in the last five years that has something to do with an aircraft is filled with errors and misstatements of facts. I know this without having any inside knowledge of the specific incident. The limited facts that they present are frequently misleading and sometimes blatantly wrong.

Botnst · #56 01-21-2005, 11:33 PM

That's pretty standard for newsies dealing with any techie issue. It stems from two problems. The first is dumbing-down so an 8th grader can understand it, I remember somewhere reading that news is aimed low. The other is this: Have you ever talked to news people? I know generalizations are unfair and all, but everyone that I've met have been barely average intelligence. Nothing wrong with average, but we maybe expecting more of them then they're horsepower can deliver, on average. In contrast, I know a few of the engineers who work for local TV and they're usually pretty bright and somewhat to very contemptuous of the 'talent'.

I know there are smart ones, they just don't seem to get out much.

Brian Carlton · #57 01-21-2005, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

That's pretty standard for newsies dealing with any techie issue. It stems from two problems. The first is dumbing-down so an 8th grader can understand it, I remember somewhere reading that news is aimed low. The other is this: Have you ever talked to news people? I know generalizations are unfair and all, but everyone that I've met have been barely average intelligence. Nothing wrong with average, but we maybe expecting more of them then they're horsepower can deliver, on average. In contrast, I know a few of the engineers who work for local TV and they're usually pretty bright and somewhat to very contemptuous of the 'talent'.

I sometimes make the statement that there is no reason to watch any news on television or in the local newspaper. I conclude this by the fact that every story for which I have even remote knowledge is fraught with misstatements and outright errors. So, if this is the case with the news that I have knowledge about, what can I conclude about news for which I have no knowledge and am watching their program, or reading their paper, to gain the knowledge?

I discontinued the daily newspaper about ten years ago because there was no "news" in it. Of course, if you wanted to know who crashed into what vehicle or who was arrested for drug possession, then the Newsday is for you. How people consider this "news" is beyond me. What can they possibly do with this news other than to line their birdcages with it.

dmorrison · #58 01-21-2005, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azimuth

that is what i meant, i should have written, "i don't like being out of control"

next time i'll proof read better. thanks!

Remember the 2 people that give a thumbs up or down to the condition of the aircraft are siting in the pointy end up front. Your pilots arrive at the scene of the accident before you do. And they don't like when that happens.

Dave

dmorrison · #59 01-21-2005, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MedMech

dmorrison, what plane(s) did you fly in the Air Force?

1971-1981 Various Cessna's and Pipers going from a private pilot to a CFII.

1981-1987 the T37 and T38 in pilot training and then the C141 at Charleston AFB SC.

At American Airlines 1984-85, 727 flight engineer 1985-86 727 Flight Engineer Check Airman, 1986-88 MD80 copliot, 1988-1990 DC10 Copliot, 1990-now MD80 Captain.

Dave

dmorrison · #60 01-22-2005, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

All very interesting Dave. I am involved with balancing of the JT8D-217 and CF6-80C2 engines at A/A and have more than a passing interest in these machines. It's always excellent to hear it from a pilot's perspective.

A S80 Check Airman told me we worked a deal with Pratt and Whitney. We will buy, in the future, a set amount ($ amount) of P+W engines in exchange for free upgrade kits for all our JT8D-217 to be upgraded to 219 engines. So the entire fleet will be 219s. This was done over the last couple of months. We were looking into re-engining the MD80 Fleet. It could of produce a sizable fuel savings in light of the fuel efficency of say the MD90 engine or 717 engine.

Dave