Slashdot Mirror
MH370: Fragment Is From Missing Flight
hcs_$reboot writes: The plane part (the flaperon) that was found on a beach in the Indian Ocean on Réunion island was determined to be part of MH370, the Malaysia Airlines flight that vanished more than a year ago. Some experts have postulated that the damage suggests the flaperon may have been deployed when the plane hit the water, meaning that someone in the cockpit was consciously manipulating the controls. The Malaysian Prime Minister said at a press conference "We now have physical evidence that ... Flight MH370 tragically ended in the Southern Indian Ocean.".
So at least we know the plane went down, unless someone dumped 777 parts in the ocean as a diversion. We don't know exactly where or why, but we know it wasn't diverted and stolen, and this should re-energize the search attempts. It's there, somewhere (or several somewheres).
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
We also have evidence the mis-direction was intentional and it may have been landed intentionally by its pirate pilot. What did he want?
Would be awkward if the MH370 piece was from another missing plane.
You're saying that a fragment from flight MH370 is from the missing flight MH370? That's amazing.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
"MH370 Fragment Is From Missing Flight"
Well duh, if it's called the "MH370 Fragment", and MH370 is missing, it's obvious--then this is not news.
Title should read: found aircraft fragment believe to be from missing MH370 airline.
Of course an "MH370 Fragment" would be from the missing flight. I wouldn't expect to discover that an "MH370 Frangment" was a part of a different flight.
Airplanes are one of the safer modes of travel. Why? Because we investigate all crashes thoroughly and try to prevent the same crash from happening again. If a plane crashes now it's an event, and one that had to have multiple failure modes because a single failure is no longer enough to take down a plane.
Also, some people thought the plane got hijacked, or flown to some secret desert base. Some subset of those people (but not all) may be convinced their family is truly gone, and be able to take next steps.
As an engineer I can say for certain this piece is critical. However, Once the flaperon breaks loose, the appropriate technical nomenclature is a flaperoff.
for any americans worried about this crucial aviation component, rest easy. You're probably still in the terminal, safe from harm in the midst of either an endless layover or overbooked flight. Once its emerged from the latest bankruptcy merger, your planes flaperons will continue to function to the highest standard that can be enforced by a regulatory agency with no real power.
Good people go to bed earlier.
flown to some secret desert base
Flown to a secret base under the sea. I know, I know. Oh, oh, oh...
I'd be very interested in how they're stating the possibility ("pustulated", "may", "suggests") that the aircraft could've made a landing in the water. Dents or other damage on bottom surface of the flaperon) vs elsewhere? The way the hinges or control rods were damaged? This is VERY important, and I dislike people just speculating how it might have happened without some damned solid evidence.
You are wrong, a single failure can take down a craft. That would be one located between the ears of someone in the cockpit. An evil person who has given the matter forethought will always be able to surprise and immediately incapacitate a good person in the cockpit who is focusing on tasks
Cue the CNN 24 Hour Over-Coverage Machine in 3... 2... 1...
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
Ewwww.....
Part of object which fell in giant ocean found in other part of giant ocean.
Excessive CNN coverage at 24/7!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
If you RTFA, there's a link to another article that states their reasons.
http://abcnews.go.com/Internat...
Based on preliminary observations, Former NTSB Aviation Safety Director Tom Haueter says the part –- identified by Malaysia Airlines as a “flaperon,” a wing component used for balance –- appears to have a pristine leading edge. The rear section, called the trailing edge, appears to be missing.
“To me, it indicates that it was not a high speed, high angle impact, because if that had happened, the leading edge would be crushed,” Haueter, an ABC News contributor, said. “What I don’t see is a severe nose down impact.”
The condition of the debris suggests the flaps were down at the time of the crash, possibly indicating that “somebody's controlling the aircraft,” when it hit the water, said Haueter.
“The airplane wouldn’t have done that on its own,” he added. But “you’re trying to land or ditch the airplane – you’d have the flaps folded down.”
Sort of. Aircraft manufacturers try to avoid repairing their design flaws as long as they can, even if people may die.
Case in point: McDonnel Douglas cargo door, ATR-72 wing icing (still not fully corrected after more than 20 years), the deep stall tendency of Tupolev 154, Boeing's 737 rudder problems, A380 wing cracks (that one was a chance find when investigating the Qantas engine fire).
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Safety is measured in "passenger miles v. number of deaths" which deals with the (straw man) arguments you make.
Let the adults talk without interrupting. You might learn something ;0}
so it was planted there and crashed quite some time after it was lost
Not so. More people get killed commuting to and from airports than they do flying, even though that's the shorter distance.
And one of the more recent air crashes had 2 casualties. One of whom was run over by a rescue vehicle while on the ground.
Airplane crash rates are at an all-time low and survivability is at an all-time high. However, the sheer number of people who can be killed in one incident makes them noteworthy.
Kind of like the WTC attack. Considerably more people died on the US highways that year than did in the planes and towers, but 9/11 caused us to shred a good-sized chunk of the 200+ year old hard-won freedom that Bin Laden so hated, whereas we didn't bat an eye at the highway carnage. Unless we happened to either be involved in one, related to one or rubbernecked one.
Not quite. Considering the amount of people moved per flight, number of flights per day, speed of travel/amount of miles flown, advanced traffic control mechanisms, special training for operators, and the ability to fly anywhere (as opposed to being limited to a paved road, for example), there's a lot more reasons it's statistically the safest travel option besides investigations.
Very few modes of transport have these stringent conditions and immense flexibility. Heck, they'll let ANYBODY walk!
Wrong airplanes are seen as a "safe" mode of transport as a consequence of how the statistics are generated/reported.
Almost all airplane crashes occur during take off or landing. Once at cruising altitude the number of crashes are very low per mile/km travelled. In effect a flight from London to Paris is almost as dangerous as a flight from London to New York. The statistics however are presented as the number of fatalities per million km/mile travelled.
On other modes of transport such as car and train the chances of an accident are much more evenly distributed along the length of the journey.
If you took these differences into account air travel becomes much more dangerous than is portrayed by the airline industry.
You are right about the distance thing as the majority of crashes take place getting to and descending from cruising altitude.
However if you take terrorist incidents out of the equation the chances of surviving a plane crash is from memory *OVER* 50%. So take the two worst disasters in the UK in the last 30 years. The British Airtours Flight 28M on 22nd August 1985 where 137 people on board, 55 died. Or you could take the British Midland Flight 92 on 8th January 1989, 126 people aboard 47 died.
Basically people vastly over estimate the likely hood that they will died in an air crash. Further the simple expediency of turning all seats around so you back is against the direction of travel would dramatically increase the chances of survival in the event of a crash.
If you look at the design philosophy of the automated flight control systems on Airbus planes, they're taking steps to minimize that, too. Their philosophy is that, while the automated systems are not perfect, they're less likely to make a fatal mistake than a pilot. They can still be overcome, but for how much longer is a question.
Not saying it was ... but ...
Another single point of failure is "The airplane broke and crashed". Even if a deranged pilot crashes the plane, that's not a single point of failure either. Pilots are psychologically evaluated. There are copilots and other crew members that can try to stop the pilot. There are safety systems that try to prevent the pilot from doing things that would crash the plane. There are systems where planes can be controlled from the ground, etc.
Every failure is single point, if you group all the causes into a single point.
"Some experts have postulated that the damage suggests "
More Experts? Are these the ones that made all of those crazy guesses?
Or is this a new batch?
So if you had the choice between a 100% chance of car accident with a 50% chance of dying, or a 1% chance of an airplane accident with a 100% chance of dying, would you choose the car accident?
Pustulate n: An asserted proposition that stinks.
...the Malaysians go off at half-cock. How many more chances do they want to make themselves look like total clowns?
According to the French Prosecutor, there are "very strong indications", but final confirmation is awaiting further testing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-33794012
I am not willing to fly backwards in a plane. Even if it were twice as safe, the absolute increase in survivability rate of my ride of 99.99998 to 99.99999 is not worth it to me. I would be more willing to go 10mph slower to and from the airport.
If you took these differences into account air travel becomes much more dangerous than is portrayed by the airline industry.
And they are still way safer than cars.
I thing right ones are better. Wright ones too.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Nope. Those failures are supposed to be detected by various evil detection programs. It still takes multiple failures to get an evil person behind the stick of a passenger airliner. Everything takes multiple failures, even your example.
Learn to love Alaska
Sort of. If a manufacturer can move a design fault into a maintenance issue, why wouldn't they? The liability for it will sit with the operator, to inspect for the fault, rather than them proactively fixing many that may never exhibit the flaw.
Learn to love Alaska
Why not? Okay, the takeoff might be somewhat unpleasant, but other than that...
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
They couldn't keep up the 24 hour coverage of MH370 for a few more months? And only *now* that this flaperon was found, they are all of a sudden want to cover MH370 cover it again?
Fuck you CNN, you had your chance and you blew it.
I get uncomfortable if am moving in a direction that I am not facing. I don't like roller coasters that go backwards. On trains where some of the chairs are backwards, I always sit in the forward facing chairs and switch if the train changes direction.
I also prefer window seats, to reinforce in my own brain the fact that I am going forward.
I can sit backwards (and sometimes have to), when it's the only option (e.g. a full train), but this added safety is not worth the discomfort for me.
If there were some other tangible benefit to sitting backwards other than a very small increase in safety, I might be convinced to do it. Like if I could be guaranteed not to sit next to a 400 lbs guy if I sat backwards, I would probably do it.
See http://s8.postimg.org/aft171k7...
Or http://82.221.129.208/aa6index... and search for "DEFINITIVE PROOF: PART PLANTED ON BEACH, NOT FROM FLIGHT 370".
Note: the first URL is an image from Jim Stone's site with relevant details. The second link is to his site, which is in numerical form as TPTB are preventing many from getting through to it via DNS hacking.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Air plane crash, you are almost certainly dead.
Incorrect. The majority of air crashes are survivable.
If you look at all the commercial airline accidents between 1983 and 2000, the National Transportation Safety Board found that 95.7% of the people involved survived. Even when they narrowed down to look at only the worst accidents, the overall survival rate was 76.6%.
Wrong cars are seen as a "safe" mode of transport as a consequence of how the statistics are generated/reported.
Almost all car crashes occur at intersections. Once at cruising speed the number of crashes are very low per mile/km travelled. In effect a trip from Seattle to Los Angeles is almost as dangerous as a trip from Seattle to Tacoma. The statistics however are presented as the number of fatalities per km/mile travelled.
Cheaper flights. Some french group I think it was figured out how to stack more people in with alternated front/back seating allowing like 20% more traffic or some such.
If that savings is past down, which it normally is in a highly fungible market, then that might make the slight discomforts worth it.
Air planes are not the safer form of transport. Two reasons. One, it just counts the miles while flying when the plane is not in danger. It flies faster than cars, boats, etc so it seems better because it travel longer distance. Second, if you get in car, boat crash you have a good chance to survival. Air plane crash, you are almost certainly dead.
Yes. You are less likely to die in a plane than a car per mile traveled, but per unit time you travel much further in a plane. If you flew in a plane for as much time as you spend in a car you are more likely to die in the plane than the car.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Quite the opposite, they are "more dead" now. At least they are now officially dead and no insurance can still delay payments because they just might surface again.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think you're failing to understand how the statistics work. It doesn't matter how the deaths are spread out along the millions of miles, it's the same number of deaths.
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
I think the parent poster is probably right. Per landing fatalities would look quite a bit different. Per trip car fatalities would be much smaller looking, since many car rides are only a a few miles. Obviously with commercial rated pilots vs private pilots training and practice is a factor, but general aviation per landing fatality rates are about the same as per landing sky-diving.
Huh? In the last 5 years there have been a total of about 5 people killed on commercial flights in the US. In the same time there have been about 200,000 killed in car accidents.
Huh? In the last 5 years there have been a total of about 5 people killed on commercial flights in the US. In the same time there have been about 200,000 killed in car accidents.
There are a lot more car miles that air miles traveled in the US per unit time.
The most recent 2013 data
If you consider the risk per trip, it is higher for planes, but less per mile. So don't drive to Europe from the US. It won't end well. The difference isn't big and it may be the other way around right now because planes have had a good few years. But I don't have 2014/2015 data.
But as far as risk goes, these are small numbers. There are things that are much more likely to kill you. Cars and planes don't even make the top 10.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastat...
And you aren't going to fly to work, unless you're this guy..
http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/...
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
if the plane was flying entirely by auto pilot and then the fuel ran out the auto pilot would likely disengage and expect the pilots to take over. if the pilot were in the cockpit and aware, it is likely that as the plane neared the ocean he would lower the flaps to allow the plane to fly slower to reduce the speed at impact. Lowered flaps help prevent stalls at low air speeds and are deployed while landing. While cruising at altitude they are kept up to reduce drag. If up and attached to the plane at impact they could be expected to be stopped when the wing in front of the stops suddenly from impact with the water. the leading edges and the attachment points will show different bending and stress patterns depending on how the plane crashed.
However, there is another possible scenario. If the plane was flying at high altitude and control was lost. (perhaps due to a stall because of engine flame out) the plane could have gone into a steep uncontrolled dive. This could have subjected the plane to extreme over speed. At very high speeds the plane would break apart. it is not unheard of for airliners to come apart in the air just because of mistakes made by the pilots.
i believe this is a composite part. Made of fiber and glue. Some of the edges in other photographs show what seems to be fraying/delamination on the edges. This could be caused by sea water or it could have been due to over-speed.
What is the basis for these new announcements? What do we know now that we didn't several days ago?
I can see an advance from "it looks very much like a 777 flaperon" to "we've inspected it closely and it absolutely is a 777 flaperon". Is that all that there is?
I'd expect such a significant piece to have a serial number and/or quality inspection stamps that could be traced back to a specific part installed into a known plane - but I've not heard anything about such a trace back.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Positing AC as I modded you funny..
Patchface the sole survivor or mh370, washing up any moment now on a beach near you!
Aircraft manufacturers try to avoid repairing their design flaws as long as they can, even if people may die.
A pilot friend of mine told me that aircraft manufacturers are punished anytime they try to improve safety. He was talking about general aviation but perhaps the same thing applies to commercial aviation.
The airplane company comes up with a way to make a plane safer, and they start offering the upgrade. Immediately, lawyers sue the airplane company: if the plane is safer with the upgrade, that means when it was first sold, it wasn't as safe as it could have been. Thus the airplane company should pay huge damages for endangering people. It costs big money to fight the lawsuits.
Thus, airplane companies have learned to not offer safety improvements for existing designs. Or, as the saying goes, "this is why we can't have nice things."
It would help a lot if lawyers were punished for filing stupid lawsuits (like having to pay the legal bills of the defendant). But most of Washington, D.C. is populated by lawyers, so it's pretty much impossible to pass any law that impedes lawyers.
More people a year get killed by a champagne corks than a shark. About 10X more get killed by falling coconuts. People claim they fear getting killed by a cop but you are 20x more likely to get hit by a car crossing the street.
The media has people so hyped up on wild and crazy things that people lose sight of the obvious.
I'm personally waiting for "cork week" on Discovery channel but I doubt anyone would watch it. More people get killed by a falling television in their house than a shark as well. It might be more dangerous to watch shark week than to be in the ocean where the sharks are, unless you drown which is 100x more likely. But be careful on your way to the ocean if your are driving and make sure you look both ways before you cross the street to get to the boardwalk.
Malaysian officials are prone to premature authoritative announcements .
I thought it would be weird but my family and I took a long "space available" to go on vacation on a large US military plane and we sat facing backwards. I didn't notice anything different other than the obvious lean the other way on takeoff. Not many windows either.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
I would not be happy on a plane with no windows, even if the seats where facing forward.
Have you not seen James Bond?
Of course they landed it in the ocean, carefully, and they removed the hydrogen bombs that were being carried "off-manifest" in the cargo hold.
"Pustulate" is a real medical term, and it's even worse.
June 12, 2015: MH370 Perfect Nose Dive: Mathematicians’ Theory Is The Latest Setback In Search That Could Soon Be Over
it's a plant. everybody knows Rothschilds had it shot down.
' "pustulated" Ewwww.....' Well, it is now a zombie plane. Duh!
the 200+ year old hard-won freedom that Bin Laden so hated,
Please spare us the outdated cold-war rhetoric. Al-Qaeda and the Mujahideen started in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Their anger with the US had nothing to do with domestic freedoms and everything to do with US foreign policy. What do the Soviets and US have in common? Not freedom. Al Qaeda was not bombing other liberal democracies. Yes they are horrible nasty people, but they really couldn't care less about your "freedoms".
Sorry for the OT rant. Yes, airlines are safe, and I'd happily fly on Malaysian airlines again. (Its their neighbours in Indonesia who have the relatively poor safety record.)
That's how it used to be, and a reason why Cessna and some other companies stopped making new planes for more than a decade. General aviation manufacturers have better protections now, but insurance costs and FAA Part 23 regulations have driven up the cost of aircraft to ridiculous amounts. A fully-equipped Cessna 172P sold for about $42,000 in 1982 (about $103,000 in 2015 dollars). It wasn't a casual purchase, but it wasn't hard for a club or a moderately successful person to buy one.
Today, the 172S has a base price of $364,000 (about $147,000 in 1982 dollars), and the prices only get worse from there for planes that have practical four-seat capability. Part of it is because glass cockpits have become the standard for most new aircraft, but insurance is still extremely high and the FAA hasn't allowed more advanced construction methods to be used without enormous testing that makes it financially infeasible. Hopefully, that will change with the Part 23 rewrite, but I don't think anyone is expecting a 2/3 drop in aircraft prices.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
To me the interesting thing would be some sort of model one can use to estimate the danger of making a particular trip by different modes of transport. Comparing local car journeys to intercontinental air travel doesn't really help anyone.
It's not a simple problem, for example with car travel different models of car and different roads have different risk levels, with air travel different airplanes and different airports have different risk levels, with rail travel different tracks and trains have different risk levels. There is probablly a difficult balance between making the statistical buckets big enough to have meaningful data and making them uniform enough to give precision.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
That's true, but the distribution of number of deaths from individual incidents is different. As you say, this may not be relevant for safety stats, but it could be relevant in other analyses. e.g. if you want to explore clusters of the events.
soylentnews.org
You are so naive, let's ask Andreas Lubitz's passenger's next of kin about your hypothesis
There were multiple failures in that chain. Lubitz was found unfit to fly and was told as much. He was then given a note to pass on to his employer. He didn't, was able to lock the captain out of the cockpit, and crashed the plane.
The failures included, at a minimum, the apparent lack of procedure for doctors to directly notify the airline and pilot certification authority that they were revoking his medical, and lack of procedure requiring that two people be in the cockpit at all times. A direct notification of the airline or pilot certification authority at the time of the revocation (like, before he even left the building) or a requirement that a flight attendant be in the cockpit when one of the pilots is outside it probably would have prevented this.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
So you are asserting that there were no signs of Andreas' unfitness to fly until he killed them? You are the naive one.
Learn to love Alaska
The mystery gets more and more fascinating. Assuming that the aircraft was hijacked, probably by one of the pilots, what happened next? The other crew and passengers would have had hours to break down the cockpit door, unless he flew up to an altitude that caused them to suffocate (while using cockpit oxygen to stay alive himself). So we have two scenarios:
1. Hijacker retained control until the end. Why bother carefully ditching onto the water though... But then again, why bother flying until you ran out of fuel when you could just nose dive if suicide was the goal.
2. Crew regained control of the aircraft but for some reason were unable to turn transponders etc. back on, and did a controlled water landing when they ran out of fuel with no clear idea of where they were. But surely people would have had GPS enabled phones etc that could have helped them navigate towards land, or perhaps they did but ran out of fuel before getting there.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
> The failures included, at a minimum, the apparent lack of procedure for doctors to directly notify the airline and pilot certification authority that they were revoking his medical
That is not allowed in Germany, because medical issues are strictly private there.
(There was that Adolf Hitler and his nazi regime. They used to gas the jews and the gipsy, as well as those considered unwanted for medical reasons at the time: homosexuals, the physically and mentally handicapped, etc. Because of that, the post-war new Germany wanted to make sure the state cannot obtain such data, in order to prevent a re-occurance of mass exterminations, ever.)
200 years of hard fought freedom ?
What extraordinary freedom are you on about ? The British were hardly oppressive dictators back in the 1770s. Many other ex British countries have turned out significantly better for the average citizen, eg Australia, NZ, England, Scotland, N Ireland, & Canada, free medicine and all that.
America has only defended its own borders and freedoms in the two world wars. Being overrun by the Brits even if they did win was hardly a terrible outcome.
200 years what a load of narcissistic hubris..
I don't quite see how being Jewish or gay is the same as having a medical condition that makes you actually unfit to do certain jobs.
Also, the airline isn't the state.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
> Many other ex British countries have turned out significantly better for the average citizen, eg Australia, NZ, England, Scotland, N Ireland, & Canada, free medicine and all that.
Then there's Afghanistan, Egypt, India, Iraq, Jordan, and Pakistan.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
I never knew that when the pilot turns the seatbelt light off it also suspends gravity.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
> The failures included, at a minimum, the apparent lack of procedure for doctors to directly notify the airline and pilot certification authority that they were revoking his medical
That is not allowed in Germany, because medical issues are strictly private there. (There was that Adolf Hitler and his nazi regime. They used to gas the jews and the gipsy, as well as those considered unwanted for medical reasons at the time: homosexuals, the physically and mentally handicapped, etc. Because of that, the post-war new Germany wanted to make sure the state cannot obtain such data, in order to prevent a re-occurance of mass exterminations, ever.)
You may find that airlines suddenly stop using german pilots.
Can't really see a correlation.
You have a citation for that? It seems somewhat counterintuitive. If you allow any reclining you're wasting space behind the seatbacks, whereas in the conventional arrangement the rows can overlap; my upper body is over the lower body of the person behind.
(Tried ascii art diagram - failed)
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Have patience, young whippersnapper, solid evidence takes some time to fabricate properly.
According to your first link, there are about 589G air Passenger-Miles per year compared to 4 230G highway Passenger-Miles.
Let's say 10x more for road.
From 2000 to 2015, there has been about 630 death in (air carrier) plane crashes in the US, that includes 9/11 but not people on the ground. Hell, from 2006 to 2015 there's been something like 5 deaths! That's about 42 per year. (Counted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...)
In 2013, there was 32 000 killed in road accidents, let's say it 30k now. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... )
That results in about 7.1 deaths/G Passenger-Miles for cars compared to 0.071 deaths/G Passenger-Miles for planes. Or two orders of magnitude in the worst case for planes! That's a big difference.
As for your second link, I'm pretty sure car accidents (and plane accidents, but they are negligible) are included in "Accidents (unintentional injuries)", which is fourth. Moreover, if you're between 20 and 40, heart disease and cancer are going to be much lower on the list, the 65+ skew too much the data. http://www.cdc.gov/injury/imag...
> Many other ex British countries have turned out significantly better for the average citizen, eg Australia, NZ, England, Scotland, N Ireland, & Canada, free medicine and all that.
Then there's Afghanistan, Egypt, India, Iraq, Jordan, and Pakistan.
I get your argument, but to be fair, those countries were more conquered than colonized. I believe the OP's point was about British colonies, not territory gained during their empire's expansion.
North Ireland and Scotland weren't colonized.....
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
I don't quite see how being Jewish or gay is the same as having a medical condition that makes you actually unfit to do certain jobs.
Also, the airline isn't the state.
It's one of those slippery slope arguments that people on slashdot love so much.
e.g. once you let The Government impose any controls over gun ownership, you will soon end up with all guns being completely banned.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I get uncomfortable if am moving in a direction that I am not facing. I don't like roller coasters that go backwards. On trains where some of the chairs are backwards, I always sit in the forward facing chairs and switch if the train changes direction.
I also prefer window seats, to reinforce in my own brain the fact that I am going forward.
I can sit backwards (and sometimes have to), when it's the only option (e.g. a full train), but this added safety is not worth the discomfort for me.
If there were some other tangible benefit to sitting backwards other than a very small increase in safety, I might be convinced to do it. Like if I could be guaranteed not to sit next to a 400 lbs guy if I sat backwards, I would probably do it.
Interesting, I have never even considered it a problem to sit facing backwards on a train. It's not like you can see directly in front of you where you're going even if you face forwards.
I wonder what proportion of people dislike it as intensely as you? I can't believe it's very high or the traditional 50% backwards facing train carriage would never have become accepted.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I would not be happy on a plane with no windows, even if the seats where facing forward.
So what happens on a night flight when there's nothing to see outside anyway? Or do you avoid them?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
So don't drive to Europe from the US. It won't end well
Well yes, you'd drown.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
More people get killed by a falling television in their house than a shark as well.
To be fair, there is a somewhat higher proportion of people with televisions in their house than sharks.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I am a white knuckle flyer but I felt much more relaxed on those military planes as a passenger than I ever did on a commercial plane. Even while facing backwards in some configurations, the large temperature changes and looking at a bunch of random cargo strapped down and no pretty walls and ceiling, just pipes, wires, and the frame of the aircraft and the only windows are on the exit doors. They are much larger inside.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
I'd be very interested in how they're stating the possibility ("pustulated", "may", "suggests") that the aircraft could've made a landing in the water.
Because it was flying over water, disappeared over water, and a piece of its wreckage was found in the water?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
only signs in hindsight, which are useless. Such things will always happen regardless of safeties in place
I have no idea how high it is. I'm pretty sure I am not the only person, and I am definitely sure that everyone is not like me.
But as I said, I can deal with it if I have to. I won't have a panic attack or anything. I am just saying that the small amount of increased safety is not worth sitting backwards for me.
Even if sitting backwards was a guarantee of a 100% certainty that I would not die on the plane ride, I probably still wouldn't do it, because I am not worried about dying on the plane ride anyway. I'd be pretty angry at myself on the way down in a fiery fuselage, but I don't think that's very likely.
I wonder what proportion of people dislike it as intensely as you? I can't believe it's very high or the traditional 50% backwards facing train carriage would never have become accepted.
Well I suspect even if ~50% of the population didn't like sitting backwards, then the 50% backwards facing train carriage would still be ok. Maybe the threshold is closer to 25% because people also like sitting next to their families and friends.
.
Also, trains actually have to change direction, so it is not as practical to have all the seats facing forward all the time. In fact, I suspect that the reaosn it's 50/50, is so people like me can find a forward seat regardless of which way the train is going, otherwise it may have been cheaper to put all the seats the same way and have 100% of people going forward or 100% of people going backward.
There is always something to see, even if there is nothing to see. Just having a reference point like a star or the ocean, or bits of clouds, to help my brain make more sense of the motion my body is experiencing helps a lot.
The more things that are consistent the better in terms of visual information matching sensational information, going in a direction that seems appropriate (i.e. forward).
Anything that helps break the sensation that I am just being tossed around in an aluminum container, with no idea what's going to happen next for the next 15 hours. I know consciously that I have no control when in an airplane, but it's important to trick my subconscious.
You're incorrect about that, the north of Ireland was very much subject to colonisation.
Sorry for the OT rant
Don't worry, you're fine.
He was barred from flight before flying. I guess you have a funny definition of "hindsight".
Learn to love Alaska
A flaperon is a trailing edge device and is one of the components making up the trailing edge of the wing. The "leading edge" of the flaperon mates with the main wing and would not necessarily be crushed on impact. The leading edge of the main wing, certainly; but not the flaperon.
See the graphic below for location of the flaperon on a 777:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The plane was flown to a secret base on the secret west coast of Austria
The article he was refering to was on slashdot like a month ago or less. Just read every single slashdot post lIke I do.
From the occasional misunderstanding, I've gotten the impression that people from repressive regimes tend not to understand the freedoms of the US and other advanced democracies. They may hate us for our behavior, but I don't think they hate us for our freedoms.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
>That results in about 7.1 deaths/G Passenger-Miles for cars compared to 0.071 deaths/G Passenger-Miles for planes. Or two orders of magnitude in the worst case for planes! That's a big difference.
I typically travel two orders of magnitude further in a plane than in a car. This is how it balances.
My last trip by plane was 10,000 miles. My last car trip was 2 miles.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
That it wasn't allowed doesn't mean that it's not part of the accident chain. A solution is to not provide the reason for the denial of the medical, just that it's been denied/revoked.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Impressive comment.
Not barred at all, temporarily denied a U.S. license by FAA needing clarification of depression treatment, but then granted medical certificate after cleared. Judged A-OKay by the FAA, let's make that a song jingle.