ATFS_CrashIn the cold light of day we are asking is this bill fair or reasonable? especially as the cost was not agreed before being undertaken. What is a fair price for two cat surgery sessions ( under general anasthetic) and an x-ray??
It’s probably more than I would pay, however you didn’t have much choice since made the choice to let your cat run loose.
Is the charge reasonable? I think so, compared to what it cost for human surgery it is a bargain. As near as I can tell the charge is comparable to other vet bills.
Would I spend that much money on a cat? I doubt it, however you really don’t have a choice since you let it run loose. I’m not sure what the laws are where you’re at, but here if you let an animal run loose you can be held liable for any damage it does to anyone else or itself. Actually you have gotten off quite cheap compared to many people in your position. If the lady that apparently hit your cat; instead swerved and had an accident and damage her car, was injured or and killed, then you could be facing much larger financial responsibility and possibly even criminal charges.
Is it worth it, that is strictly a matter of opinion. If you think it is worth letting a cat run loose, to risk the liability. Either way it was your choice to let the cat run loose, so you should suck it up and face the consequences and stop second-guessing.
Even if the injuries was not from your own neglect and even if you had a direct choice in the surgery, whether or not it is worth it is a matter of how much you love your cat, how much money you have, what condition the cat would be after the surgery, and how long you estimate the cat would live after the surgery.
I’ve had German shepherds, they are superb dogs but they are very bad about getting dysplasia at about 10-15 years old. It’s heartbreaking, but I’ve always put them down once they get to the point they are in such bad pain can’t get up and down the stairs. There is surgery that might be able to help them, unfortunately it puts them through heck for a few weeks or months, and the surgery costs about 2-5k USD; to me it seems like too much money to spend and too much pain and suffering to put a dog through that is likely only going to last a year or two more.
For younger animals that have a greater potential of lifespan I would be willing to spend more money if they can live a reasonable quality of life. I spent about 2K USD trying to cure a young dogs ear infection, however even after spending all that money, several procedures and seeing several vets the dog still continue to deteriorate. She was screaming in pain, and when people would try to pet her it would hurt her ear so she was becoming aggressive. To stop her suffering, and to prevent her from injuring someone I put her down.
ATFS_CrashThinnest Taxiway Ever?
It doesn’t look too thin to me, it’s not crumpling under the wheels, however it is rather narrow.;)
ATFS_CrashIt looks like he is using many types of formats, so it’s likely he uses many different types of compression.:(
ATFS_CrashGreat post, and seatbelt commercial.
Possibly overweight?
ATFS_CrashMean, does gollevainen or GarryB believes this stuff:D
It wouldn’t surprise me if GarryB would call National Geographic a tabloid and it’s story a cover story, as part of a conspiracy driven by the US. It wouldn’t surprise me if GarryB praised Pravda for getting the “truth” out. I don’t remember your posts that well.:rolleyes:
ATFS_CrashI love these old-fashioned films, many of them are simple, direct, and memorable. Many of them are a little corny and dramatic, but I think that helps get the attention of some people’s personalities.
I’ve never been in the Navy, but I have seen a clip of it in the Air Force. I posted the short clip that’s in very bad condition on my page before I realized there was a longer and better version already posted there. Oh well.
Similar military safety films.
See if these safety videos bring back some memories, if not it might be educational.
Chuck Yeager Tells How He Saves Another Pilot From Hypoxia
Effects Of Explosive Cabin Decompression On Crew
Altitude Chamber Hypoxia Training
Bien Hoa Air Base Vietnam May 16 1965 Conflagration / Fire
GLOC Centrifuge Training
Controlled Hypoxia in Altitude Chamber (cards)
USS Forestal Mishap July 29, 1967
Pilot Fatigue Exhaustion Distraction Docudrama
This starts out with a bunch of text debunking some of the aspects of the JFK conspiracy theories.
Spatial (aka Spacial) Disorientation & JFK JR Part 1 of 2
Spatial (aka Spacial) Disorientation & JFK JR Part 2 of 2
ATFS_CrashIMAO The airshow airbus flight demonstration was gross public endangerment. I think the pilot, TAP, and airshow personnel should be investigated and reviewed for their disregard for safety. There also seems to be some corruption issues to allow such systemic neglect of public safety.
It is very disturbing that despite the massive public criticism (many of them knowledgeable professionals) of the unsafe demonstration, that TAP, and airshow officials still stand behind the recklessness. It rings of a PR cover up/conspiracy and cronyism to support such carelessness in modern times. They act as if they are Untouchables and people’s lives don’t matter.
It’s amazing that an airline such a good safety record should resort to such carelessness of public safety for a publicity stunt in modern times.
It’s amazing that so many people are blinded by product loyalties and patriotism that they would allow such reckless behavior, and attack those that criticize the recklessness.
Looking at it from this angle you realise just how close to the ground he was
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYfhC9ft_hk&mode=related&search=
To me the altitude of the low pass in itself is a little shady but acceptable. However there is a combination of factors that make it unacceptable IMAO.
Did you notice the proximity of the pass to the aircraft parked in a nice neat row all along the side of the flight path?
Have you ever heard of the phrase (or its variations) “departure from controlled flight”. What if something went wrong for a second or two at the start of the high-speed run and the plane veered into the park aircraft or the audience.
Hear of the story of Saber pilot that shot down a MiG in N Korea, as the MiG was trying to make an emergency landing at its airbase, and it crashed through the parked fighters that were parked in a nice neat row and they all were engulfed in flames? The Sabre pilot possibly wiped out an entire squadron by shooting down one airplane.
The MiG was a smaller airplane with less fuel flying slower, so an Airbus crashing into the flight line could do a lot more damage.
Do you remember the video of an airliner cartwheeling through a cornfield? Do you remember the videos of the MiGs cartwheeling through the airshow audience? After seeing these videos of TAP, it’s real easy to imagine an Airbus cartwheeling through and airshow audience.
==========
—————-
(Imagine a departure from normal controlled flight just prior to flying over the spectators for the photo opp.)
A310 Portugal Airshow 2007 Evora II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXGTfSS3AnQ
———–
=======
Here is a video of a model biplane that crashes into a crowd and kills two people and injures four. If this much damage can result from such a small model airplane, just imagine what a full-size Airbus could do, particularly if it had a chance to crash into other fueled aircraft to spread fire and shrapnel.
http://www.hirado.hu/cikk.php?id=116485
——
====
I was contacted by an individual that claimed to be part of airshow “security”. He claimed I didn’t know anything about aviation or safety, yet he supported the reckless Airbus display. He doesn’t seem to know hardly anything about safety or aircraft. He brags that if they moved the show any closer that more of the workers and audience would get peppered from gravel and other debris stirred up by the flyby wake. It’s hard to believe such ignorance and arrogance. It seems to be a systemic sociopathic behavior of ego and lack of compassion.
In some ways it is funny when an individual that has videos of kids combat flight simulations, claims to know more then experts. The sad thing is that this individual could possibly be part of the airshow team, judging by the recklessness and carelessness.
The individual flaunts shallow rhetoric, hyperbole, and jargon as if he is trying to intimidate and impress me. With me it has the opposite affect. It’s like a Chihuahua that barks excessively and nips at your heels to try to impress you.
====
There is danger at air shows, however it insane to take unreasonable and unnecessary risks. At an airshow that is run properly there is little chance of spectators being injured. It really burns me up, that as many times that there has been crashes, that so many people refuse to learn from the crashes. There are some individuals that will refuse to learn from mistakes, they are so arrogant that they insist to continue behavior that has been proven to be dangerous.
ATFS_CrashGood target practice. It looks like they needed the practice; I would suggest more of it.
ATFS_CrashI just want to criticize the title. Wouldn’t “hard landing” or “acute attitude landing” be more appropriate than “heavy landing”. I think it would be more technically correct, and not cause alarm about a mother in law. 😉 It wouldn’t be the first time she scraped her tail.
ATFS_CrashIn the B52 accident he stalled the wing because of his angle and speed you can’t really compare it to the A310 manoeuvre
I disagree. The Airbus is also on the verge of stall below an altitude a recovery can be made. They both were pushing the aircraft to the limits without leaving a decent margin of error. All it would take would be an electrical power surge, a gust of wind, a change of wind direction, wind shear such as an invisible dust devil, power surge, a bird strike, a minor miscalculation of the pilot, a slip of the controls, a minor failure, ect… stall-crash-explode-burn.
There are many other similarities the more you analyze that are very eerie and give me déjà vu. Even some of the spectator comments are very similar. The excuses and rationalization for the safety violations are essentially the same.
They both did low level flyovers of spectators and did maneuvers over spectators, which in all the air shows I have been at, are violations.
I think it also is an air show regulation of most or all air shows that aerobatic maneuvers must be tested and perfected before trying at an air show. It seems that the B-52 pilot and possibly even the Airbus pilot was trying maneuvers that hadn’t been fully tested. It seems the Airbus pilot may not have done all the maneuvers before. It sounds like their simulation excuse, it is a claim that the maneuver was done before the air show. I was under the impression that simulation is encouraged for practice, but does not qualify as perfecting and demonstrating new maneuvers and routines prior to air shows.
The simulation aspect is also apparently used to downplay the danger as trying to explain away the danger as a diversion. Simulation is great for practice, however the mentality and consequences are different. If you crash in a simulation, it’s no big deal. If you crash a real plane at an air show, the consequences are much more severe and permanent.
I think the problem with the B-52 pilot and the Airbus pilot is psychology. They are flying their aircrafts as if it is a video game and there is no consequences to failure. Push all the way to the limit, and leave little or no margin for error. They need to start flying like safety conscious responsible adults flying real airplanes, instead of acting like spoiled irresponsible children playing video games.
They are also similar in the fact that they both seemed to buzz parked aircraft in a manner that would’ve taken out all the parked aircraft along the flight line if they departed from normal controlled flight for a second or two.
If people keep on flying aircraft in this manner, I think it is just a question of time before there is a crash, considering that some of them seem to be flying with lower air shows safety standards, I think there is an alarming risk to the spectators.
There is always some risk, it’s a manner of trying to keep the risks reasonably minimal.
ATFS_CrashIMHAO I think the TAP A310 pilot is another Bud Holland wanabe. I would ground him and not let him fly unless his attitude on safety improves. I would yank the airshow ticket and review it and TAP.
A310 Portugal Airshow 2007 Evora I
TAP A310 low fly past causes a stir at Evora air show
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/09/17/216834/video-tap-a310-low-fly-past-causes-a-stir-at-evora-air-show.html
Low pass wing waggle over spectators
I think the authorities should get reamed too.
A310 Portugal Airshow 2007 Evora II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXGTfSS3AnQ
I think the crew and air show authorities should have to watch this video and study this case.
Mishap of B-52 at Fairchild Air Force Base Washington
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Fairchild_Air_Force_Base_B-52_crash
http://s92270093.onlinehome.us/CRM-Devel/resources/paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm
http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=14464006
ATFS_CrashThe new search equipment works well they have found 6 uncharted plane crashes so far.
In their quest to find missing aviator Steve Fossett, searchers have come across uncharted plane crashes six times. But none of the wrecks shed light on what may have happened to the multimillionaire.
ATFS_Crashcomputers tend to do inventory checks better then humans
Maybe in some cases, but for the most part the computers do a better job running the numbers and crunching them, however often there needs to be a human in the loop to help with counts.
Some automated systems are real good about counting the tags, but it often takes a human to see the part is there and the right one.
When the power goes out or there is a software glitch it takes a humans to keep things running , microfiches, notepad and pencil.
ATFS_CrashRefer to my previous post about multiple levels of clearance required. Most of them should involve multiple humans. But atleast one of those clearances should be an automated inventory check. Not saying no human is required. But getting a helping hand from a machine may not be a bad idea.
I hate to admit it but computers tend to do inventory checks better then humans. Better then me in anycase. I have been known to lose track of the number of drinks in my fridge.
You said “take out the human element”. I think they should both normally be in the loop in layers to keep an eye on each other.
Thats not the same thing as takeing the human element out.
I have seen parts systems go down because of an electrical storm, earthquake, rats, power failure, ect… I used to keep a spare set of shoes, so I could climb fences and get into the parts bins in an emergency.
ATFS_CrashWell. yes and no. I do agree that the rule need needs to be adhered to. No question about that.
But some automation may need to be put in place in order to take out the human element and error that you are referring to. Im actually surprised that there isnt a mandatory automated check before inventory is moved/destroyed.
I disagree. There is a Hollyweird movie with Henry Fonda I think you need to wach. The movie is a corny flawed drama, but they use a very good factious scenario that warns you why humans need to stay in the loop for some things. It’s like flying on a commercial plane; I hope a pilot is on board most planes for a long time. Planes don’t have to have a pilot in them now, but for safety I think a human pilot should be on board most planes in case the computer glitches or is hacked.
I disagree. There is a Hollyweird movie with Henry Fonda I think you need to watch. The movie is a corny flawed drama, but they use a very good factious scenario that warns you why humans need to stay in the loop for some things. It’s like flying on a commercial plane; I hope a pilot is on board most planes for a long time. Planes don’t have to have a pilot in them now, but for safety I think a human pilot should be on board most planes in case the computer glitches or is hacked.
Fail-Safe (1964 film)
You never had a blue screen of death, you never needed to reboot, and you never had a virus? You never had something fail on your computer that it took a human to fix?
Humans can be more flexible under some conditions, such as EMP or failures.
I think it needs to be pointed out that the missiles themselves were not armed.
The media reports “nuclear armed cruise missiles”…not the same thing.
In case some of you don’t know…Same words, very different meaning.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me then a frontal lobotomy
It also reminds me of the time the general allegedly asked a soldier shoe his horse, but he thought he said shot.
Sign In
