rdc1000LOL, I know they are used in Japan for domestic services…but beyond that and one or two other key asian city links it seemed a strange choice based on the fact that paying for fuel in Japan is going to be fairly similar from airport to airport and I understood the question as being international benefits of fuel differences.
Compared to long haul models there are only a relatively few 747SR and 400D models flying.
Did you also know that the 400D can be altered to the full long haul model at a certain point in life as it is more likely to reach its cycle limit than flying hour limit? So changing to international status allows the hours ot eb increased and cycles reduced.
rdc1000747s are used alot on trips of 3 hours and shorter espeically on domestic Japanese sectors.
LOL, I know they are used in Japan for domestic services…but beyond that and one or two other key asian city links it seemed a strange choice based on the fact that paying for fuel in Japan is going to be fairly similar from airport to airport and I understood the question as being international benefits of fuel differences.
Compared to long haul models there are only a relatively few 747SR and 400D models flying.
rdc1000747s are used alot on trips of 3 hours and shorter espeically on domestic Japanese sectors.
LOL, I know they are used in Japan for domestic services…but beyond that and one or two other key asian city links it seemed a strange choice based on the fact that paying for fuel in Japan is going to be fairly similar from airport to airport and I understood the question as being international benefits of fuel differences.
Compared to long haul models there are only a relatively few 747SR and 400D models flying.
rdc1000[QUOTE=andrewm]
They want to peacefully persuade Iran etc to give up their various vices and are now seemingly supporting Bush as he wants to do just this. Remember Sadam wouldnt talk that much and did give the Inspectors the run around to a large extent by telling them which facilities to vist and when until a large foot was put down.
QUOTE]
This is exactly how it started with Iraq, I may not be hugely mature (age wise I mean) but I am 6 years beyond some of you discussing this and remeber how it was all supposed to be with Iraq. Iran equally are not happy to have people running around. It all reminds me of the boy who cried wolf! Invade enough countries with no substantiated evidence and then in the end nobody will believe a thing you say.
rdc1000I think Bush is a good guy, he (and the UK) have solved a great problem in Iraq, and so what if Lufthansa flights were delayed for a while! Bush was invited to that country and no-one can change that.
I think I originally agreed that he was solving a problem in Iraq, I was not a huge fan of Saddam or his regime, the way he treated much of the population stunk. But then as time has gone on I have started to suspect more and more that he simply undertook a personal vendetta…to finish what his father started.
So Iraq aside he now turns his attention to Iran………where did that come from???!!!!!
A question. How can America be a true democracy when it has political dynasties? Bush and Kennedy being the two major ones, I’m sure there are more.
Also…have you seen Farenheit 911, even if you only believe 50% of the claims it is SCARY stuff!
ENOUGH ALREADY before I get told off.
rdc1000…grow up! LOL.
P.S. This was meant as a joke based on earlier comments between members…please don’t take offence. 🙂
rdc1000rdc where is the pol that says 99% didnt want him back in? Strange as the poll i saw conducted on behalf of the BBC around election time made out the gap as more of 55% opossed and 45% for.
You know I don’t mean literally 99%, grow up! LOL. It may apparently be that split, but I have yet to talk to ANYONE who thinks he has anything to offer the world. Now I know a fairly mixed number of people, professionals, students, the whole range I would say, and NOT one of them has said they are glad he got back in when we have discussed it. In fact at election time it was a regular thing to hear people say ‘I see Bush got back in……..’ so don’t try to say it was not a hot topic of conversation!
Anyway, I’m leaving it here, as I pointed out in my last post because it is not really aviation related and there are other places for this discussion…
rdc1000Would you like some cheeze with that whine? I’m sure that Pres. Bush is crushed that you don’t like his guts now be a good little boy and stand aside as adults do their work.
I cannot tell from the profile, but I’m guessing Victor is American, probably one of those who voted for Bush…and to you I ask……were you aware that 99% of the UK had their fingers, toes and other bits crossed that he wouldn’t get back in. Indeed one young person can’t make a difference, but when most of the population of his closest ally country don’t like him, then he has a problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyway, this may have moved too far from aviation, so I will move on…….. 😡
rdc1000As an add-on, can they also sue him for being a general muppet, and danger to mankind??
rdc1000Fine, I’ll copy and paste myself then (if DME is permitted then I presume I am). It is simple, many people on these forums will not understand the arguments I have put forward unless they are themselves sailors. There is also a tendency not to look at all the facts but to become biased when some form of aviation appears at risk. By putting forward the agrument from the other side then people can make INFORMED decisions. It seems ludicrous if this is not permitted!
I know I may seem opposed to such ops at the Loch, but I have concluded in the thread by suggesting a way forward and I think that unless people understand the issues from both sides then they may not draw the same conclusion.
rdc1000I can copy the entire thread and send it there if you wish but it would look better coming from you. So I’d suggest copying and pasting the first post. 😀
Does that mean I have to copy an paste all my responses?? The arguments are the same regardless of which forum they are in, and I belive that people should be aware of all the facts and not just take an aviation bias. Possibly it may be worth moving across the whole thread or else I suspect people will not fully understand the reasoning behind the scheme or the logic of someone loking at it from a non-aviation viewpoint.
Not tyring to be awkward I promise 🙂 🙂
rdc1000I did take your points on board.
My point was, its is not fair to single out the Seaplanes for such an issue. Any form of transport is dangerous in the hands of a drunk person. Ok, seaplanes all the more so.. but to single them out is not right.
OK, I’m laughing now……I’m FAIRLY definite that the National Parks Authority have no intention of banning sea planes based on drunk pilots (and that is is NOT mentioned in the consultation), it is quite possible that there has never been a drunk pilot land on the loch! DME stated in his/her original post that anyone can get in a boat including someone that is drunk, and surely this is more dangerous than fully trained pilots……….my point was that this was not a valid argument as anyone can get in a plane (and I should ahve mentinoed cars etc) drunk but that it very rarely happens, and that most water users are responsible to some degree, just as pilots are.
Can we PLEASE leave the drinking issue alone now…I think it genuinly is not an argument for or against this consultation, and I think if someone legally challenged an argument such as this at an appeal against the outcome then a good barrister would rip them to pieces. STOP!
rdc1000your points are good ones.
However, they are more or less the same for Cars, Trucks etc.
Legislation is there to prevent drunk drivers. But it still happens and people get killed. So on the same tac… we must ban driving on our roads?I’ve watched activities on loch lomond. Its the Jet Ski’s you have to look out for more than anything.
A simple solution is to classify an area of the loch as sea planes only. It certainly is large enought. A bouyed line across the lake with clear marking would prevent Jet Ski;s and the like “tresspassing” onto the sea plane area.
I’m really not sure you are taking points onboard, with regards to the drunkness issue I could fire this straight back at you, you have stated that people can sail drunk, very true, but they can do anything drunk, including flying, so to trying to suggest that drunk people on a lake are more dangerous than planes is ludicrous and misses the point that very few people on water are ever drunk, and that those that may be are in the minority, as with flying, driving etc.
I agree that classification of an certain area may be the answer, as suggested in my first post on here…and I would suggest that as a lobbying group you should be using the consultation period to discuss such issues instead of all out war against the ban. Government run consultations are available for everyone to have their say, and they are obliged to listen, otherwise any mistakes can be legally challenged. What you need to do though is spend some time and energy coming up with some useful answers and solutions.
rdc1000Various points taken there, I admit that when looking at US and Candian Ops it looks ridiculous, however I have to play devils advocate and stick up for the park authorities in some ways, and don’t feel in a bad position as I understand both arguments.
The national parks exist to provide facilities for everyone, and in order to provide the best facilities for the majority they may have to sacrifice the minority. It is a cold fact of life, but goes on all around us in a democracy.
I must answer a few points in particular. For a start, despite massive experience and training, the fact that operators have insurance doesn’t mean anything once a dinghy with a family of 4 people in has been hit, are you suggesting that their lives can be paid off?
The truth of one of your statements is that actually all boats are required by law to be insured before going onto most public lakes etc, and the minimum requirement for insurance is normally £1m for public liability, which is quite substantial considering the damage a dinghy can do compared with a sea plane. Furthermore legislation is being introduced regarding mixing alcohol with boating, and when a private pilot takes off from a private airfeidl somewhere he will not be challenged over whether or not he has been drinking, or indeed is drunk. Don’t take this point the wrong way, I’m not suggesting that all pilots do this in the slightest, waht I am saying is that the same measures to prevent pilots being drunk are in place for sailors, ie legislation and nothing more.
The ‘unacceptable risk’ element is very true…the speed of any aircraft cannot be matched int he slightest by any boat, and this would cause problems should the paths of two craft cross. Furthermore sailing boats are actually quite unmanoueverable and if a conflict arises there is every chance that a boat cannot get out of the way fast enough. Furthermore even the most experienced sailors experience capsize etc which can occur for a number of reasons to catch the experienced unaware. As a pilot you may think that your take-off run will be clear by the time get to where a boat is currently sailing, but what if a freak mishap should mean that boat capsizes as you reach it?
Most harbours (and I’m sure those in the US and Canada will apply the same rules) have a system whereby any boat which has a motor must use it in favour of sail when entering, leaving or moving around a harbour area. This reduces the unpredicatability of sailing and can guarentee pilots that the speed a boat is travelling at will continue. Furthermore the majority of private boats using these haorbours are substantially larger (therefore not really going to capsize!!) and faster than those which are seen on the Lochs and Lakes of GB.
I’m not trying to be awkward, and I think there are issues which need to eb resolved if activites are to remain, but as as sailor I would prefer the knowledge that I only ahve to follow the guidelines for sailing/motor craft and that I do not have to live in fear of a plane descending at any time. I admit it is a wonderful sight when such an aircraft lands, but when an authority is dealing with so many users they MUST ensure adequate safety for the majority, which will always be at the expense of a minority, and I’m sure all in aviation understand this principle more than any others.
rdc1000I’m afraid I do not currently have time to review the website you’re talking about, so forgive my ignorance if I’m asking a silly question….are you sure that a primary reason for the banning of sea planes from the Loch is exactly because there are so many other water users? As well as my career in aviation I also hold an RYA Sailing Instructors qualification which I used prior to and during my time at uni. In my gap year before university I worked on a lake in France, which was regularly used for the fire planes to pick up water from, but when they did the entire lake had to be cleared of all craft. Now I know Loch Lomond is substantially larger than the lake I worked on, but I am concerend that part of the problem is that for the sake of 4 sea planes based in Scotland is it worth upsetting the enjoyment of a large (and knowing watersports growing) number of people trying to get on the water. I realise that the planes will use only limted areas of the loch, but this is going to be unpredictable and therefore the authorities are possibly worried about the safety risk.
As I said I could be completely wrong, and I apologise if their only argument is the environmental one. I would suggest though that if their argument does hinge parlty on this issue of interference then you could consider approaching them about setting out a desginated landing zone…….
Sign In
