France and French speaking Canada. Not racist, just true. CDG is notorious, mainly because much of the level of english is non-existent as ATC talk to French pilots in French, how can you be spatially aware of aircraft around you don’t understand who ATC are talking to.

I’m wondering something here; when was the last time you have been in contact with ATC personnel while flying in or over Quebec? Just wondering where you got your “facts” from. Funny how one can have an opinion on a subject and by using a simple statement such as (it’s), “just true” that suddenly your opinion becomes factual, (well at least in your mind).

If you do in fact have some sort of data or incidents, (i.e. time, dates & locations) I’d be happy to forward these reports to Transport Canada.

YAK-11 – Raytheon has concerns about the long term structural integrity of the aircraft. They use a lot of composites and I believe one is being used for examination into the longevity of carbon fibre structure.

It seems that the early commercial uses of carbon composites has the US insurance industry worried about longevity and future claims.

In Aug of 2004 at Mazda Raceway in Calf, a wealthy Dutch Ferrari importer was playing boy racer with one of the ex works racers during a Ferrari club event and had what appeared to be a minor shunt into a tirewall at something under 60kph.

The nose of the F1 Ferrari (a 1999 model) broke clean off leaving the drivers feet exposed. The break occured where there were no joints or previous damage repairs.

Now this car was tested under the supervison of the FIA to a very high impact standard.

Now Ferrari are concerned about these older first and second gen type carbon cars, both from an aging concerning (the unknown) and of possible non factory repairs to these race cars. Even the type of primer and finishing paint coat applied years later can cause chemical reactions that could affect the quality and strength of the materials. They just don’t know enough about how the storage, upkeep or even the chemical properties of even cleaners affects the products long term strength. There is also of course fear of the rich fools that buy these cars and do silly things with them as well!

“I was sitting under a tree at the exit of turn 6 and saw the whole thing. He wasn’t going that fast, got on the throttle too early and spun to the inside and hit the right front on the inside tire wall. It wasn’t that hard of a hit. It was scarry to see the driver sitting there with his legs hanging out, totally exposed. I’m glad the corner workers got the rest of the cars slowed down. The driver was Federico Kroymans, the Ferrari and Maserati importer for the Netherlands, the car is a F399. He was able to get himself out of the car and limp around. He is tall and a bit overweight, so I wonder if they modified the monoque for him to fit. It was a clean break at the bulkhead where the steering wheel attaches.”

Ferrari investigates tub failure

Ferrari is investigating why one of its F399 chassis tore in half during an accident in a historic race at Laguna Seca in the United States. Technical director Ross Brawn said: “We have got the car back at the factory and we are looking at it. Although it’s the same model as the one Michael had his accident in [at Silverstone in 1999], it’s a very different sort of accident. In Michael’s he had a front impact and the wheel came back into the cockpit and that’s what broke his leg. With this one – as far as I understand – the car went backwards into a barrier and the wheel became stuck in the barrier as the car spun around it, putting a tensile load on the car.” The ’99 Ferrari was torn in half.

It may end up that a whole generation of motor racing cars will be unable to be raced in future (20 years or so from now) at historic racing events, such as the Goodwood event because of these fears. Without factory support in the future, one can guess that insurance companies might decide not to offer a rate. If that happens, track owners may decide that the risk is too great to allow them out onto the track.

It would seem that the general aviation industry would have even greater fears concerning the aging of these types of materials considering that they have been using these items longer then the motor car racing industry has. There is a great difference between a race car running around a race track with containment (walls and guardrails) and a Beech Starship’s tail falling off while over a city…

Just saw this at the secretprojects forum:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdF1yPFRJ9s

LOL 😉 🙂 :diablo: 😀

Notice how they don’t have to get up to go to the washroom? You see there is this device under the seat and, well, ummm… Never mind… 😮

Argentina’s attack pilots were actually too good. At the Falklands, the A-4 pilots pressed their attacks so close that there were a dozen hits where bombs went in one side of British ships and out the other before exploding. They had armor-piercing bombs that were incorrectly fused for the situation. The Brits could have lost far more ships than the two kills by exocets.

Maggie and company under estimated what skilled, motivated pilots could do in the little Fords. Many US Navy flyers during the Vietnam war rated the Sky Hawk as one of the best attack jets of the time. As far as the fusing: The issue was not that they were incorrectly fused but rather that they were driven down onto the deck by the fire from the hills and the Sea Harriers above when they attacked troop ships unloading in the harbours. I’m trying to recall (and look a round the place) for a neat little book writen by a Sea Harrier pilot I have that explained what went wrong for them. I believe after bouncing quite a few bombs around that they learned to drop from higher. I think the issue is that you can’t drop a 500 pounder from 250′ and expect to be able to miss the explosion. Plus the AOA in most of the harbour attacks were low and at very high knots. They really did better then most experts thought they would do given the equipment they used.

Reading the attrition list is a big part of following aviation.

I just thought it was a bit morbid. If one wants to learn from accidents the NTSB type sites are better and list causes and sometimes recommendations. Simply listing crashes here in the brief format posted is not much better then a database of poor luck and errors and sad results.

While crashes are sadly part of aviation – so I guess is rubber necking at car crashes on freeways. In this case I’ll keep my eyes on the road and be thankful it’s not my name or plane on the database… Just my 2 cents.

Does anyone know what the *point* of this thread is about?

The point of the army guys in trenches was to prove that a nuclear detonation was survivable within a certain proximity, and to examine the logistics of warfighting in a post-detonation environment. Nobody knew yet of the lasting, long-term effects of nuclear radiation. Why? Because nobody had dealt with it until that point. You’re basically asserting that the US government had knowledge of the complete effects of nuclear radiation exposure on humans before they even detonated the bomb.

The lack of known data of the effects of atomic bombs wasn’t only on the American side…

The renewed threat to the islands came after Beijing had argued that Soviet ICBM developments had changed the world’s balance of forces decisively in favor of the Communist bloc, but it came when the reliability of the Soviet deterrent was being questioned within the Chinese defense establishment. At the Moscow Conference of Communist Parties in November 1957, Mao contradicted Khrushchev’s line that no one could win a nuclear war. He said that such a war would not be the end of the world, because half its population would survive. From other statements by Mao, it is clear he thought that a large part of the Chinese population would survive an atomic war.

Link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/quemoy_matsu-2.htm

The real argument here is that you cannot prove that statement. Find me a government policy memo. A transcript of an interview with a senior government official in office during that time. Any sort of actual evidence to back up your claim.

This is my point exactly. If you deal in research or you deal with lawsuits – you must have data/facts to back up your statements. Some people believe that having a “public” opinion on an issue automatically gives them an exemption from legal action if *they* believe it to be true. Most find out to their horror that there can and are limits to the leeway given such defenses….