Sound familiar?

http://www.entertonement.com/clips/2819/Aviation/Autopilot-Disconnect-Classic

The fact that the “conveyor” of faberic had no (none, zip, zero, nada) effect on the takeoff roll dispite any concern that the conveyor’s speed may have been a bit too slow, fast or whatever makes your counterpoint inconsequential.

The thought/point that the material my have not matched the exact initial speed of the aircraft and THAT is why the aircraft tookoff is comical. Rather than pick apart visual clues perhaps some folks should spend more time learning basic physics.

I think on the next mythbusters they should prove that the only reason that the space shuttle takes off is because the launch pad matches the rotational velocity of the Earth EXACTLY. We all know if the launch pad didn’t rotate with the Earth the space shuttle would sit helplessly on the pad with engines blasting. Oh the humanity!!! Earth = largest moving conveyor ever!!

The winglets don’t save fuel per se, as in reduced burn. The burn at any particular flight level is almost the same with or without. They cause the wing to produce more lift (or to lose less), thereby allowing higher flight levels earlier in the flight, and generally (normal winds) the aircraft burns less fuel at the higher flight level.

Actually that’s exactly what they do, reduce fuel burn. Less drag = less thrust required = lower fuel burn.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/pf/pf_winglets.html

Yes, getting to cruise faster and being able to climb higher sooner helps but the fuel savings isn’t seen until mission length pushes 1000 nm (per the Boeing webpage) which indicates that the fuel savings is coming from that extended time flying at altitude rather than short hops.

I wouldn’t call most of those scary. SXM has nearly 8000′ of runway with an approach over open water. Doesn’t push the limits of aircraft or pilots to handle that.

DCA is scary in that if you bust the 2 Prohibited Airspaces to the north you are tracked by NORAD and missle defense systems. Again, 7000′ of runway with only a sharp turn to landing on runway 19 (which has several visual/instrument pieces of equipment to guide you in). But beyond the airspace limits which are well documents with landmarks to pick them out it isn’t scary at all.

Only 1 of 4 runways at JFK is less than 10,000′. Runways 13L/R have sequencing lights to guide you in visually from the south in VFR conditions. Again, unusual but not scary.

Talking to pilots who have flow it I would agree with Toncontin Airport being on the list. Not to mention that the type of aircraft being flown into these airports make a lot of difference. Perhaps a 747 into Matekane Air Strip would be scary but a C172?

3 of the 8 crew members died unfortunately.

http://cbs4.com/local/jet.crash.centurion.2.765094.html

Because a few airplane fans are also rail fans? 🙂 I was raised by one of those. 😀