|
Post by Falcon on Mar 29, 2015 17:35:00 GMT
As to the 4 eyes principal, does one really think that a Flight Attendant, even a male one, could stop someone from doing what they wanted? If the aircraft is on auto pilot, the flight attendant could get over powered by the perpetrator, and could be stopped from letting anyone in the cockpit. I have always been skeptical when I see a small stature lady enter the cockpit when one of the pilots has to exit. Just saying! Falcon
|
|
|
Post by canuck on Mar 29, 2015 20:40:43 GMT
It is my experience that Small Statured Ladies are amongst the most dangerous creatures on the planet. lol
|
|
|
Post by Falcon on Mar 30, 2015 13:30:53 GMT
That was a pretty stupid statement on my behalf canuk. You are correct!
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Mar 30, 2015 19:23:37 GMT
TAKING A LIGHTHEARTED VIEW OF THAT .... I'm now curious what you (he) did, or said, or didn't do, or say, that might have resulted in such an unsavoury conclusion .... if not a negatve experience, if not both .... Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by Peter Liddell - HJG Admin on Mar 30, 2015 21:11:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Mar 30, 2015 21:47:54 GMT
Probably just a reflection of the fact that they're so popular .... that there's so many of them in service now. In the event of any acciden/incident occurring, at all, the chances of an A320 being involved are probably (I think) "statistically higher". The media will make all sorts of crap/nonsence out of these situations .... often implying that a particular aircraft type has a bad reputation based on the number of accidents/incidents involving it within a certain period .... and which "PISSES ME OFF" big time Thanks to "MEDIA MANIPULATION/ AND OFTEN POOR/IRRESPONSIBLE MEDIA REPRESENTATION" .... the DC10 went through a simuilar phase during 1979 .... similarly due to the fact there were so many of them in service, at that time, and which "statitically increased" the chances of any accident/incident involving one of them too. I often wish that more intellegent/sound analyses/interpretations of certain situations/events would prevail .... that's all Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Mar 31, 2015 10:27:43 GMT
Hi:
DC-10: There was something political involved in the FAA grounding (bad consciousness) of all DC-10s after the AA Flight 191 crash in 1979, as the Turkish Airlines Flight 981 also crashed years before and finally due to a flaw of the design philosphy of its hydraulic flight control systems (and before due an uncorrected flaw of its baggage hatches). NSTB investigations found various of the flaws years before (even after the AA Flight 96 in 1972) but their recomendations were not fully enforced by the FAA which accepted arguments about costs etc. So the proud and respected Douglas could dig the grave of variuos hundreds of humans and its own as an independent company.
Kind regards
Walter
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Mar 31, 2015 23:19:27 GMT
What I was really meaning/trying to communicate (above) is .... I get tired of the media slandering "any particular aircraft" type based on a spate of accidents/incidents which might occur within a certain shiort period. The media often (but not always) know little .... and most of the public know even less (other than what they're informed by the media) .... to the extent that it's sometimes a little like "the blind leading the dumb" Similar certainly happened to the DC10 "after" CONTINENTAL (at Los Angeles(, AMERICAN (at Chicago(, WESTERN (at Mexico City(, and AIR NEW ZEALAND (at Mt.Erebus/Antarctica) accidents .... each of which were unrelated to the integretuy of the aircrafts design/engineering though .... and each of which occurred within very close succession between early 1978 and late 1979 .... along with a spate of other non-fata//non-hull loss related "incidents" too .... and which resulted in what became a real media frenzy/beat up of the DC10 "during 1979/1980". I don't know what media in some foreign countries are actually reporting, but here (in NZ), I've seen/heard at least one such report clearly throwing crap at the A320 .... based on AIR ASIA accident late last year and both the recent GERMAN WINGS and AIR CANADA accidents/incidents. That's what I was really meaning .... and it's this sort of irresponsible "media mentality" which really "GETS UP MY NOSE". Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by acourt on Apr 1, 2015 14:55:57 GMT
The media s**ks. That's all there is to it! Think about this: we all know how badly the reporters/networks misrepresent, hack, and fumble any story related to aviation. Do they do the same thing to other subjects? Finance, baseball, politics? If that's the case, we can't trust anything the media says!
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Apr 1, 2015 15:19:23 GMT
Probably not !!!! "SOME" media .... in "SOME" places .... and in relation to "A LOT" of topics .... seems, today, to have become "ENTERTAINMENT" (and I mean sensational entertatinment) rather than about news and/or informing/information Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by CORLL ONE on Apr 1, 2015 16:32:40 GMT
The media seems to create the news instead of just reporting it. Then they bring out some clown from their newsroom who has his private pilot's license and he speculates as to what the Captain with over 10,000 hours MAY have been doing at the controls or the flight characteristics of the aircraft involved. D-bags.
|
|
|
Post by Peter Liddell - HJG Admin on Apr 1, 2015 21:13:41 GMT
Well they were throwing muck at the 777 last year too after Asiana at SFO and the 2 Malaysian... incidents. So at least the media i watch is an equal opportunist destroyer.
|
|
|
Post by mikethepilot on Apr 1, 2015 22:17:38 GMT
Well they were throwing muck at the 777 last year too after Asiana at SFO and the 2 Malaysian... incidents. So at least the media i watch is an equal opportunist destroyer. Correct! The media always seems to be in this mudslinging campaign to discredit an airplane's reputation in order to "make the headlines". This story repeats way too often after an airplane crash. The safety record of the A320 is nonetheless impressive given the amount of airplanes sold and in revenue service.
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Apr 2, 2015 9:13:19 GMT
Probably not !!!! "SOME" media .... in "SOME" places .... and in relation to "A LOT" of topics .... seems, today, to have become "ENTERTAINMENT" (and I mean sensational entertatinment) rather than about news and/or informing/information Mark C AKL/NZ Hi: For good reason they are using the term "infotainment". But as you want a serious information about whatsever you must wait till the dust has settled. As what today you read, hear or whatch is driven mainly by interests and greed. Besides that the media CREATE a virtual universe, which has no direct relation to reality, as Marshall Mcluhan proposed that media themselves, not the content they carry, should be the focus of study—popularly quoted as "the medium is the message". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhanTherefore the main question is "WHY and WHEN they are reporting?" NOT: "WHAT they are reporting?" Kind regards Walter
|
|
|
Post by Peter Liddell - HJG Admin on Apr 2, 2015 17:02:20 GMT
For good reason they are using the term "infotainment". But as you want a serious information about whatsever you must wait till the dust has settled. As what today you read, hear or whatch is driven mainly by interests and greed. Besides that the media CREATE a virtual universe, which has no direct relation to reality, as Marshall Mcluhan proposed that media themselves, not the content they carry, should be the focus of study—popularly quoted as "the medium is the message". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhanTherefore the main question is "WHY and WHEN they are reporting?" NOT: "WHAT they are reporting?" Kind regards Walter Oh no, first thing and only thing I could think of for a full minute... ...a part of our heritage. Any Canadian that lived in the 90s will understand that line... And for everyone else... youtu.be/GHzAerGKYnc
|
|