D.StarkIan – The problem is a 747 flying to the U.S is carrying quite a few more passengers than the Vulcan can plus the passengers of the 747 are paying for the privledge. I don’t think it’s got to charging the crew of the Vulcan yet for the privledge!
Sort of like the argument I got into on a car racing forum with someone who said their carbon foot print was lower then mine because they used public transportation (train and bus) to get to work and I used a Toyota Echo. I say his footprint is hundreds even thousands of times larger then my little low emission car if you want to argue what the costs were to get each of us to work. Of course he went into a major spit flying meltdown about himself and 2000 other fellow travelers on his train against just me in my Toyota – but he wasn’t arguing volume and passenger totals with me at first – it was HIS carbon footprint against MY carbon foot print that very morning. It’s all BS anyway as I enjoy my Sirius satellite radio and don’t have to smell anyone else for an hour! Comparing a 747 to the Vulcan is just as silly.
D.StarkI guess there is always payroll deduction if the pilots are found at fault…:D
D.StarkNo Problem but hows you keep the Mossie and we will send you the Flying Saucers and you can send us the B-24(s):D
Deal! See everyone, that was easy… 🙂
D.StarkI’m not taking sides, but…let’s ask a question..
What’s the difference of a Mosquito going back to the land of its manufacture and the daily trade of Spitfires, Mustangs and Corsairs that freely go between the US, UK, AUS, NZ and Canada?
Many (most) current US Mustangs were at one time part of the RCAF (when surplused they went South as surplus US AC were sold/given way to govts. overseas or scrapped to avoid them going overseas illegally..the same thing happened with Sabres…). To perhaps stretch a point, If the Canadian govt calls the Mosquito an artifact…why not a Mustang, especially if it’s ex-RCAF?
Remember, it’s a two way street….
If Canada calls it a cultural treasure, what about the Halifax that went to Canada a few years back? It could have stayed where it was (Norway?) or claimed by the RAF. Playing this game could have repercussions down the road.I just get nervous when countries play the “Cultural artifact” game.
The historic aviation world may be the loser….especially if the proposed UK owner wants to restore it to flight.
Let’s see, an unrestored Mossie in western Canada…or a flying one in the UK?
Sorry, to my Canadian friends, no contest.
Tell you what – we’ll trade the Mossie for the Avro flying saucer that the US won’t give back, (of which you have both)! 🙂
D.StarkHow long did the A330 fly for as a glider?
18 very long minutes…. Ground distance (in fact over water!) was around 110-120 miles.
D.StarkI hope it goes to the national collection in Ottawa and while there – it can wait a few years for another certain twin engine A330 glider to join it so we can have a pair of Boeing and Airbus gliders! 🙂
FYI: I’ve flown on both these aircraft. Once to Calgary on the 767 and once to Cuba on the 330.
D.StarkIt’s now October,it was supposed to fly in September and all the hot air has gone remarkably quiet. I really cannot see this becoming a reality anymore ?
Sorry if this sounds negative but press releases seem few and far considering the mighty public interest in this machine ever taking too the air .
[The following in the voice of the “Robot”] Thank you Dr. Smith, your concern is duly noted.
D.Stark*War-prize Me262A, similarly buried at former RCAF Station Downsview
Too many reports for it not to be true. We know it was here and many people reported it *was* at Downsview. See this link for more info: http://me262.nfshost.com/mt/site
Here is a photo of the aircraft in question: 
D.StarkDoes anyone know what the status is of the aircraft at markham??
Depends which aircraft your talking about – these ones?
http://www.ontarioabandonedplaces.com/planegraveyard/markhamplanegraveyard.asp
D.StarkYes F1 cars do survive crashes and all new cars have to go through rigorous crash testing befor being approved by the FIA.
As a foot note.
The highest G-Force ever survived in a F1 car is an estimated 178G after the car came to a complete stop from 176Kph in a distance of 66Cm. The driver sustained multiple fractures to his legs,ribs and pelvis, but survived and continues to race today in lower class competition
I’m involved in auto racing as a marshal or as called here in NA, a corner worker. I attended this years Canadian Grand Prix and was blue flagging at station 9B when we had a massive accident involving the driver Robert Kubica in the BMW powered Sauber F1 car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MePg0h8hE3w
No one that was here on this day and who witnessed the crash believes that this driver would be alive after such a massive impact, let alone walking around that night or returning to driving after a one race rest – had he been driving an early 80’s aluminum based car.
The reason that people are surviving these massive crashes is because the carbon *does* break apart to absorb the G forces that would normally be transferred to your body in a “quick burst” instead of a controlled rate of transfer. It’s no good worrying about carbon burning when an aluminum aircraft traps you inside a folded up barrel like a peanut in a squashed beer can.
The ability to layer the weave and modify thickness allows the designers to protect the basic tube where the passengers are – also allows areas free of passengers such as the wings, engines etc to break away. It is this break up of the aircraft at a ‘controlled’ rate that is dissipating the G level and saving your life – not the darn thing staying in one piece! In all of the crashes I have attended in the last few years, the drivers tub has stayed in one major piece while the rest of the car breaks apart. The same idea will be applied to aircraft – tear up the aircraft in as controlled way as possible, but leave the fuselage the last major part to break apart.
As far as the aircraft made out of carbon fibre breaking into small pieces??? This must be someone’s idea of a joke? Modern carbon groups of the last five years are so advanced from what we knew in the early days that there simply is no comparison with the products used earlier. They won’t explode into some cloud of powder or shatter like a piece of glass unless the designer wanted then to do so and it certainly wouldn’t be the section under your butt.
Most carbon today has been designed for various uses and its make up can be as flexible as needed without breaking or as rigid as needed.
As far as the issue of some sort of poison smoke when carbon burns: Well I’m still here and kicking and I’ve put out quite a few race car fires where the body (carbon) was burning. Does it smell nice? Heck no. Would the smoke kill you if you breathe too much of it or ran out of O2? Umm, yeah. Same as any other smoke. Rule one – don’t breathe smoke if you can help it.
It takes a lot of heat to catch carbon on fire – heat that may have already led to your downfall before the smoke issue. I dare say that the heat transfer issue with aluminum is way worse then carbon. Has anyone such as this former Boeing person figured out that a wing burning beside an aluminum structure would transfer heart into the passenger area before the carbon material of the 787 would allow it? Perhaps we should worry about interiors and carry on bags giving off toxic smoke before anything else. How many people have been decapitated by the aluminum structure breaking up? Why don’t we harp on that issue? Why? Because there is not much we can do about something’s in life and the effects of Murphy’s Law. Sometimes you just have to TRUST people who make it their life’s work to design these things that they and their families will fly on, sitting beside you and I.
I always get a laugh out of the fire alarm pulling style of people who run around waving their arms about dangers they have fixated on yet don’t think twice about jay walking or driving their car fast. You want ultimate safety – design your own fireproof Styrofoam aircraft! Wait – doesn’t Styrofoam harm the Ozone layer too? 🙂
D.StarkWhich tire do you put the “boot” on for illegal parking?? 🙂
D.Starkwhats the url addres?
D.StarkIt’s a big aircraft!
D.Starknice but VERY expensive piece on Ebay?
Ouchhhh!
regards
Mark Pilkington
Why can’t people just leave a piece of history alone? Why the need to modify or cut up a prop. I left mine alone as I found it. I am only the current caretaker and someday it will pass to someone else to take care of.
D.StarkI work within the aviation industry, as a consultant and hear lots of talk of it being a notorious problem. No fact to back it up directly, and I do think I should say that its not something you hear much of nowadays in Canada, but it wasn’t long ago that it was a regular issue. I was aiming the comment MORE at France itself though to be honest (hence talking about CDG), where even the national airline wanted all communications to be in English because it felt it was safer, but the pilots and controllers wouldn’t allow it.
At the risk of sounding harsh… “I work within the aviation industry” could also mean a baggage handler or a ticket agent… 🙂
I don’t have a problem with anyone having an “opinion” on a subject and state it as such . However, it’s disingenuous to make generalizations about an important issue when you have no first hand information on the subject and tell the reader, “it’s true”. Myths, innuendo and urban legends seem to be the derigeur for most internet sites.
You will be interested to know that I was afraid that you were going to tell me that you were a BA Capt or 1st officer who flys over here. Happily I see we have nothing to worry about concerning planes crashing into one another because someone isn’t speaking, (or speaking well) in the federally and internationally mandated ATC language of English.
It would be rather embarrassing to have such an issue cause an incident over Montreal Quebec – home to the headquarters of the IATA…
Canada also has responsibility for the operation of the “Gander Oceanic Control Center” in which this center handles anywhere from 2000-3000 messages per day using HF radio equipment. There are many francophone controllers in this center. There has never been an incident attributed to language.
FYI: I cannot find one incident where a language issue has initiated a report in either the NAV Canada database or the TSB (Transport Safety Board) database nor does a google search reveal anything.
If anything, most ATC issues are caused by plain old procedure sloppiness, for example:
9.0 Information Transfer*
In 197 of the 362 Fact Finding Boards included in the database of this Special Investigation, a contributory or cause-factor relating to “communications” was assigned by Transport Canada; e.g., incorrect or unclear phraseology, failure to acknowledge or verify, inadequate coordination, inadequate sector briefing, transposition error, data posting error, data processing error, etc. In other words, in over half of the ATS occurrences investigated, communications- or information-transfer-related problems were found to be contributory.
_________________________________
*Further background information on information-transfer problems is contained in chapter 10 of the Staff Report on the CASB’s Special Investigation into ATC Services in Canada.
In the United States, the frequency of communications-related problems may be even higher. Based on an analysis of approximately 70,000 reports to the U.S. Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS), approximately 80 per cent of the reports filed by pilots and controllers referred to ineffective information transfer via verbal communications. Consequently, in the United States, an industry working group was formed to identify significant communications areas of concern. The working group identified 12 areas for concern:
— Similar sounding alphanumerics
— Controller hearback problems
— Phraseology
— Enunciation
— Head-sets vs. speakers
— Radio discipline
— Intra-cockpit communications
— Inter-controller coordination communications
— Blocked or simultaneous transmissions
— Stuck microphones
— Readback problems
— Initial radio contact
The working group concluded that, if each and every pilot and controller recognized the 12 areas of concern identified by the working group and took action to eliminate the occurrence of particular problems existing in their own verbal communications loop, the benefits would be immediate in the quest to eliminate communications breakdowns.
Most of the concerns raised by the American working group pertain to the Canadian occurrence experience. In addition, the file review and field survey phases of this Special Investigation revealed considerable mutual misunderstanding between pilots and controllers of their respective workloads. For example, one Boeing 737 pilot traversed 140 miles of Toronto Centre’s airspace prior to contacting the Centre. On the other hand, one Fact Finding Board Report was critical of a pilot who allowed 66 seconds to elapse before contacting an arrival controller as instructed. While these are extremes, these two occurrences reflect a mutual lack of understanding and respect for the workload and responsibilities of other personnel key to the aircraft separation function.
In view of the frequency of irregularities and failures in the oral information transfer process and given the importance of effective inter-controller and controller/pilot communications to the safe separation of aircraft, the CASB believes that industry-wide action is required. Transport Canada, the professional associations such as CALPA and CATCA, and owners and operators could all play a role in improving the information transfer process. Promotional materials (e.g., safety articles, posters, videos, etc.) and familiarization visits (by pilots to ATC facilities and by controllers to cockpits of aircraft in flight) could help improve mutual understanding of the vulnerability of the oral communications process to human error.
– From: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/studies/90sp001/90sp001.asp#9
Sign In
