Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tarmac Delay Stats, 2014

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    I read too fast...
    Actually, you got it right. Sort of.

    I was using TV's own words to reply to him. So I copy and pasted exactly the section of the sentence that you quoted.

    The result was a sentence with two subjects (I and you) which, other than going against basic pencil-and-eraser (also known as stick and rubber) writingship, is also forbidden by the FCOM of the English-200-LR MAX-9.

    When you said "Gabe", I went to check and found the mistake. And edited it

    Go to TV's post to see the original version, as I had originally copied and pasted it.

    --- 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 ---

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
      Actually, you got it right. Sort of.

      I was using TV's own words to reply to him. So I copy and pasted exactly the section of the sentence that you quoted.

      The result was a sentence with two subjects (I and you) which, other than going against basic pencil-and-eraser (also known as stick and rubber) writingship, is also forbidden by the FCOM of the English-200-LR MAX-9.

      When you said "Gabe", I went to check and found the mistake. And edited it

      Go to TV's post to see the original version, as I had originally copied and pasted it.
      HA! I do suffer from "big picture" thought processes as opposed to "super-detail-can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees" thinking.

      But in this instance, I was NOT a moron.

      So, in reality, I was using basic reading skills, and the person writing was over-reliant on automation, made a subtle-human-factors error and through a chain of events, sort of like Swiss Cheese and I incorrectly determine that Gabriel is a paramedic. Good thing I didn't act recklessly and injure myself with the false confidence that Gabriel could apply genius first aid.

      WOW...that sort of thing could, like, cause a plane crash.

      Of course, when there's two folks involved, there's some techniques called Copy-Resource-Management (CRM)...where if something appears unclear, the person reading (PR) can confirm back to the person writing (PW) and rectify the situation before the thread crashes. Of course the role of PW and PR can be shifted from person to person rather rapidly. It's important to be clear who is functioning as the PW and the PR and hand off said roles with clarity.

      Interesting mix of procedures, training, fundamentals, human errors and error-correction systems.

      Amazing.
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
        that's a crock. tickets are revenue generators. nothing more. safety has NOTHING to do with it.

        tarmac delays are 99.9% airline fault. they are too cheap and it's all about THEIR profits NOT our comfort or security. the other .01% is on the side of the government being too stupid and stubborn to upgrade our atc system
        Speeding tickets are absolutely a safety issue. And there is always the possibility of the police officer letting you off with a warning, which is exactly the same thing as what happened with Southwest. The regulatory agencies decided to waive the fee to encourage better behavior. That is exactly what the point of those fines is in the first place. To encourage the airlines not to strand people on planes.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Leftseat86 View Post
          Speeding tickets are absolutely a safety issue.

          really/ you sure about that? 10 years ago the sped limit was 55. 65 bought you a "safety" related speeding ticket. now the speed limit is 70. go figure.

          and don't tell me that cars are SO much safer than they were ten years ago. in 2005, my mini cooper s was as safe as a new one is today. it handled well over the speed limit just fine.

          Comment


          • #20

            --- 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 ---

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
              really/ you sure about that? 10 years ago the sped limit was 55. 65 bought you a "safety" related speeding ticket. now the speed limit is 70. go figure.

              and don't tell me that cars are SO much safer than they were ten years ago. in 2005, my mini cooper s was as safe as a new one is today. it handled well over the speed limit just fine.
              TeeVee...

              C'mon, don't make me go scientific on you and umm...you're getting awfully absolute.

              Car's crash.

              Energy =MV^2. The little ^2 means that at 70 you have 49 times more energy to dissipate before your head get's smashed than at 10 MPH.

              Much like planes, people f-up...run off the road, hit trees. If you are slower, you have a better chance of living.

              A kid runs in front of you as you pass the school yard and you're going 40 in a 20...it's a 4X stopping factor.

              Sure, there's low speed deaths and yeah car safety, seat belts, airbags and yeah, you can get run over at 2 mph too...

              Yeah, they confound things, and nice try on cherry picking of data, but there's one serious ass correlation with your risk factor of hitting a tree at 30 vs hitting it at 70.

              And most reasonable folks figure we do need some speed limits and maybe even a threat of a ticket and fine to encourage compliance.

              Everyone's acknowledging that the legal system has some flaws...

              As a representative of it, you seem to be trying to call the physics flawed instead.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #22
                a 120 mph crash? sure. first, likely not survivable head on but not all crashes are head on. second, a 70 mph speed limit is NOT going to stop someone from doing 120. period. end of story.

                as for combing speed, i submit to you that two cars doing below the speed limit that hit each other head on are still going to result in catastrophe.

                you can't save stupid.

                as for the horrors of lower speed crashes, i extricated a guy with the steering wheel in his thoracic cavity in a crash of under 45 mph. his car was t-boned and rolled over. we cut the steering column and transported him with the wheel lodged inside of him. he died on the way to the hospital.

                so what should we do if the goal is "safety?" i say let's lower the speed limit to 5 mph EVERYWHERE.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                  TeeVee...

                  C'mon, don't make me go scientific on you and umm...you're getting awfully absolute.

                  Car's crash.

                  Energy =MV^2. The little ^2 means that at 70 you have 49 times more energy to dissipate before your head get's smashed than at 10 MPH.

                  Much like planes, people f-up...run off the road, hit trees. If you are slower, you have a better chance of living.

                  A kid runs in front of you as you pass the school yard and you're going 40 in a 20...it's a 4X stopping factor.

                  Sure, there's low speed deaths and yeah car safety, seat belts, airbags and yeah, you can get run over at 2 mph too...

                  Yeah, they confound things, and nice try on cherry picking of data, but there's one serious ass correlation with your risk factor of hitting a tree at 30 vs hitting it at 70.

                  And most reasonable folks figure we do need some speed limits and maybe even a threat of a ticket and fine to encourage compliance.

                  Everyone's acknowledging that the legal system has some flaws...

                  As a representative of it, you seem to be trying to call the physics flawed instead.

                  way of base bro. and the correct formula is KE=.5(MV^2), where the velocity is squared. and yes, the tends to prove that velocity is more important than mass when calculating kinetic energy.

                  my point is simply this: speeding tickets DO NOT PREVENT SPEEDING AND THEY ARE NOT FOR SAFETY EITHER. no matter if cops give tickets or warnings, some people obey the limit and some people won't.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                    so what should we do if the goal is "safety?" i say let's lower the speed limit to 5 mph EVERYWHERE.
                    Now there's a bombshell!

                    I might argue for 20 MPH, but yep, the magical:risk benefit line is a fantasy because even secondary streets and 35 MPH = a certain number of deadly crashes, and indeed, you might be able to question my 20!

                    ...and for all of my "black and white" ranting- you kind of get stuck doing it when you write laws.
                    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Higher speed:
                      - Increases the distance travelled until you react.
                      - Increase the distance to stop.
                      - Increases the minimum turn radius.
                      - Increases the energy and acceleration if a crash happens.

                      The video was just to show that speed and degree of damage (or injury) are very closely correlated.

                      Another thing is that typically the speed at which a vehicle crash is not the speed it was doing. It is the speed after some braking, spinning, etc. The issue is that, going faster, you can either hit something that you could have avoided had you been going slower or, if you had hit it anyway, you will hit it faster, with more energy and accelerations involved, which is correlated to more damage and injury.

                      I agree that there is no absolutely safe speed. Not even 5 MPH. It's a matter of balance. And I don't even pretend to say that the current limits are the right ones. I won't even deny, although I don't believe so, that the main reasons for tickets might be revenue and that the government doesn't care so much for safety.

                      Just that you said that [speed] tickets are revenue generators. nothing more. safety has NOTHING to do with it.

                      And that's wrong.

                      And that people either complies with the speed limits or not regardless of the enforcement action is just not true. MANY people abide to the limit (or 5 MPH faster) to avoid tickets. There is a reason why the academics say that laws need to be both attainable with and enforceable and that, if not, you better don't bother passing it.

                      --- 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 ---

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Good evening Tee Vee... Coming up on the 1 hour mark at Dulles awaiting deicing at 11:00 PM.

                        Definitely sucks.
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          And the pilots say operations is telling them NOTHING...

                          Systematic breakdown....
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            and then???

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                              and then???
                              No follow up last night because we hit the "airplane mode" phase and my cell battery was dying, and just wanted to go to bed.

                              Final stats:

                              We were on the ground for right at 2 hours (1 hour 45 minute net flight time). Arrived at 1:30 AM instead of 11:30 PM.

                              Maybe it was a random, brief-but-heavy snowshower. But as an outsider looking in, and knowing that you deice even for flurries, I accuse them of dropping the ball unless the weather man just totally screwed the forecast.

                              It was 10:00 PM...NOT THE PEAK FLIGHT TIME!!! It does snow at Dulles. Is having to deice planes really a 2 hour traffic jam???

                              Ironically a ramp dude told us we COULD get off the plane and go into the terminal...a mere 5 min later we pushed back (more of that great communication).

                              Anyway- per our usual rants...Knowing all of the crazy sophisticated, well oiled machinery that they use normally- but because there was a snow shower (that produced only a dusting)- suddenly it's gridlock at the deicing pad and operations saying "stand by, we'll call you"

                              No system to say- "hold up on boarding THESE planes because our deicing system has X capacity and we need to cue the planes in this order.

                              Too damn cheap to sit down and build a system that's fundamentally the same as all their other systems to be efficient and treat folks well...because why? There's no profit in deicing.

                              I don't want to be overly dramatic...it's not like an 8-hour deal and the pilot says we have a passenger with chest pains, over flowing toilets, and the hostie has thrown her body in front of the emergency exit to stop a passenger mutiny-deplaning and ops says, "Rodger that, continue monitoring this frequency"..

                              But you just think they could do a lot better.

                              Oh, and they lost my CARRY ON (The RJ deal where you drop it off on the jetway and they stuff it in back and you pick it up when you get off).
                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/01...ane-takes-off/'

                                I haven't quite figured out the details on the exemption here that excuses AA from a fine...I read something about them not being on "the tarmac" which maybe means they were "at the runway" at the mercy of ATC, which is run by...

                                ...the gubment?!?!?

                                Edit- this article was clearer than the last one...the plane returned to the gate (YAY- a contingency plan!!!) and people were ALLOWED to deplane!

                                It sounds like some folks got grumbly, BUT there is no mention of overflowing bathrooms, chest pains, nor threats to pull the emergency slides.

                                Score another one for the regs and AA, you did OK.

                                In other news- how about AA sending planes without baggage from Miami for a multi-hour period...

                                ...And my understanding is that the real issue was that there was lousy communication among customer service with some of the typical fabrications and inability to deal with onslaught of whole plane loads of baggage-less passengers.
                                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X