dark light

wannabe pilot

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 466 through 480 (of 2,810 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Superstitions? #532625
    wannabe pilot
    Participant

    Do they still allow flight deck visits after 9/11?

    Whilst on the ground, a lot of carriers still do. I think a lot of it is down to the Captain’s discretion too. I usually ask on the way out of the aircraft to one of the flight attendants ‘Do you think there’s any chance I could have a quick look in the cockpit?’. A lot will come back and say yes. Reasons for not being allowed are usually ‘the pilots have already left’ or more commonly on lo-co flights ‘the pilots are already preparing for the next flight’.

    Let’s ask the flight crew on these forums….what would you say if someone was asking for a look in the cokcpit after the flight?

    in reply to: General Discussion #322114
    wannabe pilot
    Participant

    Does it state the track is frictionless? That may be the purpose of the air track. Otherwise frictional forces might be playing a part in the difference?
    I remember doing something similiar a year or two ago, or I probably did it twice in two years as I failed the course first time round, 😉 unfortunately I can’t remember some of the possible causes. 😉

    I have already mentioned frictional forces as one of the possible causes. But I think if that was the case, you’d acually expect the Kinetic Energy to be less than the GPE, as energy would be lost in heat etc.

    The fact that the KE is greater than the loss in GPE, makes me think that the air track would be leaning so that the truck is travelling slightly down hill. But I need some proper explanation, and maybe another way of proving that this is the case….

    in reply to: Any physicists on here? #1931943
    wannabe pilot
    Participant

    Does it state the track is frictionless? That may be the purpose of the air track. Otherwise frictional forces might be playing a part in the difference?
    I remember doing something similiar a year or two ago, or I probably did it twice in two years as I failed the course first time round, 😉 unfortunately I can’t remember some of the possible causes. 😉

    I have already mentioned frictional forces as one of the possible causes. But I think if that was the case, you’d acually expect the Kinetic Energy to be less than the GPE, as energy would be lost in heat etc.

    The fact that the KE is greater than the loss in GPE, makes me think that the air track would be leaning so that the truck is travelling slightly down hill. But I need some proper explanation, and maybe another way of proving that this is the case….

    in reply to: General Discussion #322122
    wannabe pilot
    Participant

    Just to add, that any help would really really be appreciated! I have been pondering this for about an hour. I only have about 2 more hours tomorrow to get this whole coursework complete before it’s due in on Tuesday.

    in reply to: Any physicists on here? #1931948
    wannabe pilot
    Participant

    Just to add, that any help would really really be appreciated! I have been pondering this for about an hour. I only have about 2 more hours tomorrow to get this whole coursework complete before it’s due in on Tuesday.

    in reply to: The Key Publishing Manchester Meet 2006 #532917
    wannabe pilot
    Participant

    Me, Stuart (RIPConcorde) and Tom (Future Pilot) will be in PMI on the 9th.

    I would say the only day in August that might in anyway be possible for me is Weds 30th. Although I am meant to be trying my best to get to AMS with Stuart around that time.

    The first week of August could also be possible, if anyone was willing to suggest possible dates.

    in reply to: New Ryanair "Sticker-Jet" #535628
    wannabe pilot
    Participant

    Nice work Adam!

    We’ve talked before, I used some of your shots on my Stansted website.

    in reply to: Any Airliners.net guys…? #461576
    wannabe pilot
    Participant

    Take pictures for yourself, not for airliners.net. Upload to airliners.net those that meet their criteria – there are other outlets for the rest, here being an example.

    But in general, the arm and the water bottle are distracting – I’m sure that the arm at the top right, in particular, wasn’t where it was for more than a few seconds. So yes, either wait, ask if he wouldn’t mind putting his arm down, adjust your position slightly so that extraneous objects aren’t in the frame, or just accept that you’ve gotten a interesting shot that you can still enjoy even if others don’t see it.

    Andy

    Cheers for that Andy.

    Life must have been pretty hard as a screener, I can imagine! It must be pretty harsh when you really enjoy looking at a photo, but something means you gotta reject it. And then putting up with the complaints and angry appeals! Were you quite senior in the team?

    in reply to: Any Airliners.net guys…? #461581
    wannabe pilot
    Participant

    My thoughts… Please note that I am NOT suggesting that I always agree with a.net’s decision making processes, but what follows is WHY I think your pics have been rejected based on knowing something about that process;

    1. The flight deck shot

    There are two problems. First, the rather distracting arm top right (and the ugly water bottle bottom right FWIW). Second, the flash glare on the autopilot panel and to a limited degree on the EFIS screens – a.net does not like flight deck pics with flash glare. Do not bother to appeal this rejection – the problems are insurmountable, its an easy badmotiv call, and appeal will only support the original decision

    2. The cabin shot

    Less sure about this one. It looks a little soft but I’m on a lap top screen right now so its difficult to be sure. Not really sure about the motiv thing, but in principal I think that the pic would be better had you stood up to take it – it is a bit all seat backs and overhead bins. Whether I would have rejected it had I been screening and had the quality been there – dunno

    Andy

    Many thanks for your opinions Andy.

    What would a.net expect me to have done about the problems in the cockpit shot? I’m thinking about when I am able to get cockpit access in the future. Ask the pilot to move?!

    in reply to: Any Airliners.net guys…? #461588
    wannabe pilot
    Participant

    Just to bump this back up, the images are now appearing.

    in reply to: Sigma 50-500mm lens… #461591
    wannabe pilot
    Participant

    I have this lense, and have used it for about 5 months. In that time, I still have not concluded whether I like it or not. It seems to be quite inconsistent, but then again it has produces some good shots (examples can be seen on the airliners.net link below). I really cannot make my mind up.

    Have people had experience of BOTH a 100-400 and the 50-500 before? If so, what do you recommend/prefer? And what do you think are the pros/cons of both? IF it seems that the 100-400 is much more highly recommended, I may consider saving up and selling the 50-500.

    in reply to: GO is re-born, …….well kind of! #538947
    wannabe pilot
    Participant

    Not another Hawaiian interisland carrier!

    This brings the options now to Aloha with their 732’s, Hawaiian Airlines with their 717’s, Island Air with their Dash-8’s, and now these. I think Pacific Wings cover some routes too.

    I flew Island Air Honolulu-Kahului-Hilo and then Hilo-Honolulu a few weeks back on a 37 seat Dash-8-100. One flight had 12, the next 36, and the final 20.

    in reply to: Any Airliners.net guys…? #461603
    wannabe pilot
    Participant

    I just see “Image Not Available”. If you post a valid link, as a FORMER airlines.net screener who is (a) happy to take a conflicting view to a.net when appropriate and (b) prepared to defend a lot of what happens behind the scenes at a.net when people make unjustified adverse comments, I would be happy to offer an opinion.

    Andy

    Hi Andy, sorry about the photos not showing up. I’m in a hurry to get to 6th form right now, I shall upload them from a different location this evening. Please check back then!

    in reply to: Any Airliners.net guys…? #461741
    wannabe pilot
    Participant

    Also, seeing as we don’t really have one, this thread could be for people to post rejections from the photo sites to see if there is anything obvious the other guys can spot which made it get that rejection. Then a thread of good contructive critisism could be made.

    in reply to: :( #541984
    wannabe pilot
    Participant

    This is your third thread you’ve posted relating to your trip to Bulgaria, and the fact that it’ll be on a 763….

    …..and your point is?

Viewing 15 posts - 466 through 480 (of 2,810 total)