If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I cannot spot a drone flying anywhere in the video. I looked for one several times after you mentioned seeing one. I do not think it would be legal for someone to be flying a drone in that area, unless it was associated with the emergency crews?
No? This thing:
Can't quite tell if it's on a wire/pole but looks like a drone. Definitely associated with the emergency crews though.
No? This thing:
Can't quite tell if it's on a wire/pole but looks like a drone. Definitely associated with the emergency crews though.
From that picture, you can see that there is a white colored pole which it appears to be attached to. Probably a boom from one of the fire fighting vehicles.
Yes, it was hard to tell if it really was a pole, or just artifact in the clouds behind. Looking at the video again, I've concluded it is on the end of a white beam against a white cloud. Not sure if it is a camera, or a hose mounting.
Certainly use of a remote camera, whether on a stick or a drone would make sense, get views from above/below, get in close without risking personnel. I guess an anchored camera would be safer than a drone that could get blown about by updrafts.
I know you love to use those fancy big airplane words Evan, but squibs DO NOT extinguish a fire. Squibs release the agent from the fire bottles.
Originally posted by Evan
I'm sure they were looking at a fire indication but have no way to know it was uncontained (other than firing both squibs not extinguishing it).
Fixed (For those who need the specific verb to make out my meaning despite the obvious causal relationship between 'squib' and 'release the agent' that extinguishes).
To print a headline implying that a fire suppression system "didn't work" here is the nadir of bad journalism. Period. End of story.
you have now admitted your ignorance of the media. they are not here to report stories. they are here to make money. you make money by attracting readers/watchers/listeners. you attract readers/watchers/listeners by loud, sensational headlines and tag lines. once you've drawn them in, you can bury the truth in the story somewhere and your "ethics" are intact.
if you don't like it, don't watch/listen/read the "news."
you have now admitted your ignorance of the media. they are not here to report stories. they are here to make money. you make money by attracting readers/watchers/listeners. you attract readers/watchers/listeners by loud, sensational headlines and tag lines. once you've drawn them in, you can bury the truth in the story somewhere and your "ethics" are intact.
if you don't like it, don't watch/listen/read the "news."
Journalists used to have a strong objective to cover "both" sides of the story, be factually accurate and be somewhat educational.
For that reason, I will continue to complain on aviation fora about their increasingly inaccurate reporting...
Indeed, that doesn't do much to address the issue, but it does make me feel better.
Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
...the media. they are not here to report stories. they are here to make money. you make money by attracting readers/watchers/listeners. you attract readers/watchers/listeners by loud, sensational headlines and tag lines...if you don't like it, don't watch/listen/read the "news."
...and the sad ironing that the good old fashioned, fact-checked, print media organizations are dying rapidly as we see what links Yahoo/Google chose to show us (ranked by highly efficient click count statistics), and DVR the evening news to skip over the commercial breaks.
...and let's not even get into infobabes, cut-throat competition and how many super-smart, fat or ugly news anchors we have...
Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
-No one jumped into a pool of Jet-A (located next to an existing fire).
-No one jumped in front of a big spinning, actively-sucking, "open-blade" fan.
-No one died.
-A lot of folks were spared a LONG delay in getting their carry-on bags.
It would seem that procedure worked well.
Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
I think the crew did a great job overall. The delay, as I said, was likely due to the cockpit crew not knowing the entire situation. The cabin crew must have though. There is a button on the 1L FA station to request an immediate evacuation. I wonder if it was used.
-No one jumped into a pool of Jet-A (located next to an existing fire).
-No one jumped in front of a big spinning, actively-sucking, "open-blade" fan.
-No one died.
-A lot of folks were spared a LONG delay in getting their carry-on bags.
It would seem that procedure worked well.
......apart from the carry on bags issue
If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !
170 people were safely evacuated from a British Airways jet ablaze in Las Vegas
Apart from carry-on bags danger the article briefly mentions dangers of duty free liquor in another accident.
I suppose it helps that I have an interest in and knowledge of aviation.....but some of the posted comments after that article are so incredibly stupid that the people making them should not be allowed to breed !
If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !
Never before heard ATC communications. Audio I recorded of the Air Traffic Communications at LAS Airport during the time and aftermath of the BA incident. Fl...
You remain seated all you want, I am outta here with or without your blessing.
Or more constructively:
We have a gigantic fire with lots of thick black smoke in the middle of the plane. Evacuate now, front doors, back doors. (this is actually what the flight attendant seated by the L2 exit should have told the flight crew via the intercom).
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Evan, this is why, with a big fire and thick black smoke around the middle of the fuselage, my initial reaction is 4 doors, 2 at the front and 2 at the back.
Aftermath shows that 5 was good (R3), but it looks like R2 should have remained closed. Remember that the airplane is certified to evacuate the full load of pax in max high capacity config in 90 seconds, using only 50% of the doors (that would be 4), and this was a half-full flight with a less than max density config. Toxic smoke can kill you in seconds even when you are running to the nearest exit. In all fires, and airplane fires are no exception, toxic smoke kills much more people than fire.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment