By removing Saddam US forces did favor only to Americans, the rest of the world including Iraqis had much more mixed feelings about that.

Let me get this straight, the U.S has lost 4,000 lives and untold billions doing a job that no one else had the courage to do: removing one more dictator from the world. They have been rewarded with isolation and recession, yet the U. S. has benefitted?

Iraq already was a decent society in the 80s.. Guess what, it was under Saddam. 😎 ?

Iraq was “decent society” in the 80s? Just like Germany was decent in 1938 I guess.

Given the embrago policy of the US by 2003 let me rephrase: Iraq had no chance to become a decent society not obeyant to the US.

So every “decent society” in the world today is “obeyant to the U.S.?” The U.S. has the power to make any country in the world subservient? No one else would buy Iraqi oil?

So, if you don’t see anything wrong in foreign Army marching into a country ignoring lack of any UN resolutions entitling them to do so, throwing out the ruler at their will, seizing oil fields, installing a puppet government and securing reconstruction contracts for themselves. Is that the idea of the democracy you champion?

So you’re arguing that every sovereign country in the world needs “UN entitlement” prior to engaging in military activity? The hopelessly corrupt UN is the great arbiter of right and wrong? If that is true, then it is no wonder the world is so screwed up!

Where is your concern for Tibet, or any number of South American or African countries, not to mention the former Soviet Republics? Or do you just hate the U.S.?

I agree – NO

However, combinations of technologies may make it prohibitive expensive for an aggressor nation to continue to nuke up when they have a smaller chance of being successful…..kinda like Ronaldus Magnus’s Star Wars all over again.

One has to wonder what the Russian response would be if we flew a P-3 directly over the Kuznetsov. Would they be “suprised by the commotion” in the open press?

Of course it depends on what you call the “open press.” Do they have such an animal in Russia? Anna Politkovskaya?

Yes, I have :-).

Anyway, I this case I don´t know if the pilot is hero or not. I don´t know how it works, and I hope someone could clarify it. The pilots have a forecast, I suppose the tower has to give updates of the changes, and then with the information decides what to do.

Under which circustantes are these approaches safe, or under control?. I have never understood, the words “ladies and gentlemen we are going to attempt……”. Attempt?. I suppose, in aviation there´s no “attempt” but operating in limits where these surprises can be ruled absolutely.

So should the pilot have diverted?. In an approach like this, are the passangers safe?. I don´t see it very clear. Anyone familiar with this stuff?.

Certificated airplanes have a maximum demonstrated crosswind component that they can land in. Most airlines have in their operational manuals the maximum crosswinds that they will operate under. The winds are a key thing that a pilot and dispatcher are supposed to evaluate. It’s pretty clear in this case that they were trying to operate beyond the limits. In this case they should have selected a more appropriate runway (which I understand they did for the second approach) or diverted to another airport with a different runway layout (less crosswind).

Shouldn’t someone point out that the source for this story, the APA, is currently involved in a contract negotiation and has less than a stellar record with regard to accuracy? To wit, their going public last year with statements that AA was UNSAFE because they were using 5% International fuel reserves instead of the FAR required 10%. Note that the ability to use the 5% was obtained legally by the FAA and there haven’t been any significant fuel events since then involving AA and their use of 5%.

APA also conducted an illegal wildcat strike a few years ago during a negotation with the result that a federal judge fined them $10 million, a fine that was UPHELD upon appeal to another court IIRC.

Hey, don’t kill the messenger, I just want to point out that using APA as a single source ain’t the best plan……..

I’ve no doubt that FAA, AA, Boeing, RR, GE, and all the subcontractors (Hamilton Sunstrand was mentioned) are as on top of the situation as they can be as part of their routine processes and controls.

Nah, MDs demise was due mostly to bad management and poor investment. Primarily on the MD-11 project.

The MD-11 is essentially nothing more than a DC-10 with winglets and a fuse plug. But is was promised and sold as an all new aircraft.

Actually there were many very significant changes WRT the electronics in converting a 1967-70 3 pilot steam driven airplane to a 1988-90 2 pilot glass cockpit airplane with modern autopilot/FMS capabilities. Not to mention changes to support 60-62,000 lb thrust engines instead of 40-53,000, and the increased gross weight from 440-570,000 all the way to 630,000.

Did you know, the MD11’s horizontal stabilisers are too small for the size of the aircraft, or more accurately their command authority is. Part of a “built in” instability which is ironed out by the autopilot. So I was told by an MD11 Pilot.

Or you could have read about it HERE:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=65304&highlight=MD-11
(see post number 18) 🙂

JAL can vouch for the quality of Boeing rebuilds.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19850812-1
If she is rebuilt I would expect BA to retire the registration G-YMMM and reregister the pheonix once risen.
Be lucky
David

post hoc ergo propter hoc

So all Boeing rebuilds are unsafe because one impoper repair caused a horrific crash 22 years ago?

Do you have any idea how many airplanes Boeing (or any manufacturer) has repaired after major incidents that fly the remainder of their economic lives with no untoward effects whatsoever? Luck has nothing to do with it.

Your comment shows a appalling lack of knowledge with regard to airline operations. I can think of 3 right off the top of my head at one large carrier alone, one of those 3 involving a wing replacement with a new one, literally out of the box (I saw it with my own eyes) from the factory. Another one of those 3 had fatalities onboard.

BTW, where are those JAL A380 orders? Apparently JAL is quite satisfied with Boeing, the horrible accident which you so smugly refer to notwithstanding.