Paul FHi All,
Whether they are real or not you all have to admit that even if just a fraction of what is reported just like Alien/UFO craft are true that’s still a fraction unaccounted for, I tend to be on the side of they are real…
To my mind, unaccounted for simply means “as yet unexplained”, it does not necessarily mean “real”…
So, the unaccounted events/instances may simpy be unexplained/unexplainable due to our lack of information or current lack of understanding, or they may indeed be “real” ghosts whatever they are.
Some Indonesian tribes used to believe evil “spirits” caused illness and death amongst the population, whereas the modern explanation is that disease and infection were/are the cause, and that fact that introduction of antibiotics and better hygeine practices has reduced rates of illness/death tends to support the “scientific” rationale.
For many people the workings of the internal combustion engine are outside their experience and understanding, but they still choose to believe that so long as there is fuel int he tank, then turning the ignition key will result in the engine runnning, and able to power their car from A to B.
I switch on my TV every day, and watch programs on it, yet I have only the vaguest notion, and no real understanding, of how an invisible radio signal can be produced, broadcast from a transmitter, move through space, be “captured ” by the metal aerial on my roof, sent down a cable, and then converted into a moving image and sound by the TV itself…. ’tis the work of the devil for sure ;), and as for wireless internet or skyping on a mobile phone :eek::eek:
i.e. lack of understanding by a participant/viewer does not necessarily mean something is paranormal (i.e beyond mankind’s future understanding or explanation), there may be prefectly rational explanation for the phenomena, but the viewer just hasn’t yet heard or understood it.
So, some ghostly/paranormal events are currently still seen as beyond our understanding, but in another few years or generations we, or our descendants, may well be able to fully explain/understand them… they may simply be viisual abberations caused by as yet unknown meterological circumstances, or they may be artefacts of the viewers subconscious imagination, or stress-induced products of unconscious memories…etc etc
As has been said in an earlier post on this thread, the fact that so many people nowadays have ready access to reasonable quaility/definition cameras/video cameras and audio recorders via their mobile phone, and yet there is still very little “good” contemporary evidence (i.e. able to withstand detailled logical scrutiny) leads me to be very skeptical – especially so far as ghosts are concerned.
UFOs, well, thats perhaps a different question….if there is an infinite universe, then logically there must be an infinite number of planets too, and there must then be a chance that life has evolved elsewhere (if you accept evolution as a route to “life”). If any of those other life forms have evolved to the point of developing space travel, then maybe those little green men in their flyign saucer are merely space tourists come to have gander at that little blue speck right out on the edge of the milky way….
Is it any wonder few of them choose to land/stop for very long once they see the mess we’re making of living on this place – they’re probably heading straight back to their travel agent on alpha centauri or Sirius 7 asking for their Flavian pobble beads back by way of a refund. 😀
Paul FHi All,
Whether they are real or not you all have to admit that even if just a fraction of what is reported just like Alien/UFO craft are true that’s still a fraction unaccounted for, I tend to be on the side of they are real…
To my mind, unaccounted for simply means “as yet unexplained”, it does not necessarily mean “real”…
So, the unaccounted events/instances may simpy be unexplained/unexplainable due to our lack of information or current lack of understanding, or they may indeed be “real” ghosts whatever they are.
Some Indonesian tribes used to believe evil “spirits” caused illness and death amongst the population, whereas the modern explanation is that disease and infection were/are the cause, and that fact that introduction of antibiotics and better hygeine practices has reduced rates of illness/death tends to support the “scientific” rationale.
For many people the workings of the internal combustion engine are outside their experience and understanding, but they still choose to believe that so long as there is fuel int he tank, then turning the ignition key will result in the engine runnning, and able to power their car from A to B.
I switch on my TV every day, and watch programs on it, yet I have only the vaguest notion, and no real understanding, of how an invisible radio signal can be produced, broadcast from a transmitter, move through space, be “captured ” by the metal aerial on my roof, sent down a cable, and then converted into a moving image and sound by the TV itself…. ’tis the work of the devil for sure ;), and as for wireless internet or skyping on a mobile phone :eek::eek:
i.e. lack of understanding by a participant/viewer does not necessarily mean something is paranormal (i.e beyond mankind’s future understanding or explanation), there may be prefectly rational explanation for the phenomena, but the viewer just hasn’t yet heard or understood it.
So, some ghostly/paranormal events are currently still seen as beyond our understanding, but in another few years or generations we, or our descendants, may well be able to fully explain/understand them… they may simply be viisual abberations caused by as yet unknown meterological circumstances, or they may be artefacts of the viewers subconscious imagination, or stress-induced products of unconscious memories…etc etc
As has been said in an earlier post on this thread, the fact that so many people nowadays have ready access to reasonable quaility/definition cameras/video cameras and audio recorders via their mobile phone, and yet there is still very little “good” contemporary evidence (i.e. able to withstand detailled logical scrutiny) leads me to be very skeptical – especially so far as ghosts are concerned.
UFOs, well, thats perhaps a different question….if there is an infinite universe, then logically there must be an infinite number of planets too, and there must then be a chance that life has evolved elsewhere (if you accept evolution as a route to “life”). If any of those other life forms have evolved to the point of developing space travel, then maybe those little green men in their flyign saucer are merely space tourists come to have gander at that little blue speck right out on the edge of the milky way….
Is it any wonder few of them choose to land/stop for very long once they see the mess we’re making of living on this place – they’re probably heading straight back to their travel agent on alpha centauri or Sirius 7 asking for their Flavian pobble beads back by way of a refund. 😀
Paul FPerhaps there also needs to be some form of assessment of River Oak’s “Plan B” if their business model looks sound, but fails to be matched by the real world events if they do take over…
Even if they genuinely set out with good intentions (i.e. to keep Manston open and active), with a business plan that they, and any independant assessors, feel is viable, if things don’t work out as planned are we likely to face a very similar situation again a little further down the road…. Or will the “keep Manston open” lobby then accept that financially it is not a viable entity?
I’d like to see it stay open, but probably more as a result of some vague romantic notion that it somehow “deserves” to be kept open due to its rich aviation history rather than out of any belief it is finacially viable, but ultimately, if any new owners cannot make a profit (or at least break even), then surely all we are doing is putting off the inevitable…. romance is fine, but cold hard economics will probably be the final arbiter as to whether any venture continues.
I really cannot see anyone following the route possibly implied by paul1897, of funding a mothballed (and very large) airfield “just in case” it may ever prove useful/viable in the possibly dim, and/or very distant, future.
At some stage the potential return on a sale for redevelopment would surely win out over the costs of keeping it largely intact but unused – even a disused airfield would cost money to be kept dormant, otherwise it will crumble and decay due to advancing age. I cannot see many commercial opertaions happy to pay out for something which gives no return in the short term. Even some form of charitable status would need to bring in income to cover care and maintenance cost, how woudl they generate sufficient income from a dormant airfield… lease the grassed areas to tenant farmers… lease runway time to motor manufacturers for testing purposes… lease builings to small/local industry? All possible sources of income I guess but maybe not too viable given ease of access to similar facilities that already exist and that may be better placed geopraphically.
I can only see two viable options, the airfield continues to operate (though possibly on a smaller footprint than current), or it is sold for redevelopment (in part, or more probably in full). The idea of soemone bankrolling care and maintenance of a dormant airfield of that size “just in case” – sorry, I don’t see it happening.
Paul Fthe purchase of nuclear weapons and a means of delivery.
That may be the critical factor John…who, if anyone would sell ISIS/ISIL nuclear weapons? Even some of the States that the West once thought of as “rogue” must wonder whether selling nuclear weapons to ISIL might be a step too far. Sure, the weapons might first be used against the “old Enemies” in the West, but ISIL may one day turn them back on the states from whom they first purchased them.
Even if States who might potentially sell nukes to ISIL currently practice Islam, unless they are as ‘fundamentalist’ as ISIL, then they must see that they too may well find themselves on opposing sides to ISIL in the longer term, not leats because Islam seems so full of sub-factions who seem to think “their way” is the only “right” way?
(That’s merely intended as my personal observation of the current situation, and is not intended as a critism of Islam, nor as incitement to religious criticism/hatred :eek:)
Paul Fthe purchase of nuclear weapons and a means of delivery.
That may be the critical factor John…who, if anyone would sell ISIS/ISIL nuclear weapons? Even some of the States that the West once thought of as “rogue” must wonder whether selling nuclear weapons to ISIL might be a step too far. Sure, the weapons might first be used against the “old Enemies” in the West, but ISIL may one day turn them back on the states from whom they first purchased them.
Even if States who might potentially sell nukes to ISIL currently practice Islam, unless they are as ‘fundamentalist’ as ISIL, then they must see that they too may well find themselves on opposing sides to ISIL in the longer term, not leats because Islam seems so full of sub-factions who seem to think “their way” is the only “right” way?
(That’s merely intended as my personal observation of the current situation, and is not intended as a critism of Islam, nor as incitement to religious criticism/hatred :eek:)
Paul FInstead, if necessary, I use the camera’s in either 1.2x or 1.5x crop modes which give me all the reach I need.
So, IIRC, in effect this would crop the images prior to exposure/capture, rather than cropping a “full sensor” image later as part of post-production manipulation on a PC?
I suspect the end result of both might well be pretty similar in terms of image quality/pixel counts etc, in which case I guess the full vs cropped argument comes down to how often you would use full frame images “uncropped”?
If you are going to crop most of your full frame shots (either via camera settings, or in post production ofterwards) to make up for the lost “telephoto” effect (that you would have gained by using a cropped sensor), then is it worth the extra expense of going for a full frame body?
However, if you expect to use most of your “full sensor” images without any/much post-production cropping then I guess full-frame is the way to go…
I’ll stick with my now ageing “cropped sensor” Canon 40D, and benefit from the added focal length it gives me… if/when it eventually expires I’ll probably replace it with another Canon cropped-sensor body for much same reason (and also because I’m not sure my current Canon lenses would fit on of Canons “full sensor” bodies…)
Paul FThis is the cue for the knockers and “its a replica” bigade to start shouting but she still is a remarkable machine and the only complete example in the UK of such a significant aircraft.
Okay I’ll bite….:D
I wouldn’t describe “Friday 13th” as a “complete example” by any means – you say yourself she has no working bomb doors, and that the engines and props are not “complete”… to my mind she is more of a “re-creation” of a Halifax, with a number of compromises made along the way.
Please note, that’s not me knocking her, or knocking the team who spent many long hours creating her from the various components they acquired, the results of their labours are very impressive, and a credit to all involved in putting her together.
I’d argue that the recovered example at Hendon is probably more “complete” (i.e. contains more orignal Halifax components), but given her “as recovered” appearance she perhaps has less of the “wow” factor on first seeing her than on first encountering “Friday 13th” which captures the “feel” of an operational example about to be readied for a mission.
Horses for courses, the Hendon example cannot help but bring to mind all those aircraft and aircrew lost on missions, whilst “Friday 13th” perhaps reminds visitors of what they might have seen at Elvington, and so many other bomber stations, had they visited during the war. Friday 13th might also appeal more to the younger visitors who might prefer to see intact, fresh looking, aircraft rather than recovered corroded “wrecks”…?
Far from knocking “Friday 13th”, I think there is a place for her (and for many of the other recreations/replicas around), and know she is much loved and appreciated by many, including myself… but I just cannot see her as anything more than a ‘recreation’, sorry.
Paul FThe areas to the northwest of Horsham around A281/Rudgwick or on the A272 between Bllingshurst and Wisborough Green have sufferred from flooding at various times in past few years. Various small streams in that area often burst their banks after prolonged periods of wet weather, and then flood large areas of the flood plains. Drive past/over the small rivers and streams in mid summer and you would barely notice them, but in a wet winter they can flood large areas for days/weeks.
There are also various plans being considered/implemented for new residential developments in the area (e.g “Dunsfold Park” just north of the “search area”, and large new housing developments to the west of Horsham), so they may be running surveys or hi-res mapping to see how such development may impact on flood risk etc.
And of course, there is always the chance that they are involved in some form of survey related to fracking/shale gas industry.
I wouldn’t see anything sinister in the fact that the mission was flown at night – that is probably more down to the close proximity of Gatwick, as Gatwick arrivals or departures (depending on which runway direction is being used) pass through or close to the area in which G-MIND was being flown.
Paul F
Paul F
Paul FIf true is that a very long time after the incident?
Charlie….Aviate, navgate, communicate ….. identify and then sort the problem as far as you can, work out where you want to go (so far as you are able), then tell people your plans .
35 secs seems a long time, and probably felt like an eternity to the crew in some respects, as they were dealing with numerous warnings and a dead engine, but by the time they’d done the emrgency actions I bet it seemed to fly past (no pun intended).
Some reports suggest they may have mis-identified which engine had failed, and then shut down the second (“live”) engine in error – but data may also show that the second simply failed of its own accord sightly later than the first….
Data recorders and CVR analysis will no doubt explain what happenned.
Paul FAre MB are getting cold feet over supporting older generation seats ?
Possibly more down to the economics? The cost of maintaining full support (to the required degree of competence) for a dwindling number of older seat models is probably a factor as much as “cold feet”.
You would hope that MB offerred a suitable “notice period”/warning of intent rather than simply pulling the rug out from under their feet when the guys tried to reorder spares/consumables…
And yes, a(nother?) swap-out for a newer seat model would probably see repeat scenario in a few years’ time, so the costs of getting such a mod designed/approved would probably not make economic sense.
Could it not be operated with a properly de-activated seat – assuming pilots could be found who would be happy to fly it under such circumstances? In terms of safety risk to people on the ground then absence of a working seat probably makes little difference, though it would of course affect level of risk to any pilot flying the aircraft – would the authorities might give some form of exemption if requested?
N.B. I’m not advocating putting pilots at unnecessary risk – but just thinking of possible options… Aren’t a number of de-mobbed jet trainers already operated with deactivated seats?
Paul FDid she already have the “ejector”-type exhausts fitted before the overhaul, or are they new too….. ?
There was a time when most (all?) of the then airworthy BBMF Merlin Spits had stub exhausts whether correct for the mark or not… good to see that they have progressively been made ever more representative of their “time” .
Looks lovely doesn’t she, can’t wait to see her back on the display circuit. Well done to all involved.
Paul Fpprune has been considering very similar thoughts as part of their ongoing thread debate on the Air Asia QZ8501 A320 accident.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/553569-air-asia-indonesia-lost-contact-surabaya-singapore.html
While you can never tell which posters are true commercial pilots and which are simply armchair MS Flight Sim “experts”, a number of posters have asked much the same question(s) regarding the need for suitably trained/experienced crew who can take over quickly when the “uncrashable” aircraft suddenly seems to be in an unexpected, but decidely “crashable” situation.
As with the Air France A330 case, there are people on pprune suggesting that too much CPL training emphasis may be placed on “Systems Operator” type training, with less emphaisis on manual/traditional hand flying skills, or even careful, but swift “logical assessment” of what the systems data tells you is an apparently “impossible” scenario.
Its a bit like driving a modern car, I guess, far too many people have fallen into the trap that airbags, seatbelts and ABS means cars are not going to hurt you anymore, and fail to realise that however good the “software” and “systems” are, get outside their safe operating envelope (e.g. tail-gateing on the motorway), or have them fail mechanically, and you may get a very unpleasant suprise… and it’s how people identify and deal with that suprise that may be critical factor.
If someone on aflight deck has had “common sense” trained out of them or has become so used to relying on the 99.9999999999999999999% reliable systems tha they are (unconciously) complacent, when that 0.0000000000000001% improbability turns up, they may not be able to react quickly enough, or in a suitable manner to recover the situation.
People are also asking questions regarding why “full stall training” on the simulator (if not the real aircraft), seems to be rarely taught – the trining schedule logic presumably being that the aircraft FBW algorithms will never let you stall it, so you don’t need to worry about what happens in stall situations (!). And, of course, if the aircraft has never been stalled in real life, the simulator programmers probably have insufficient hard data to build realistic stalling/stalled airframe behavour into the sims anyway….so how can the sim teach you when it doesnt know what will happen when the systems play up and you make inappropriate, but possibly instinctive, control inputs anyway?
Few are questioning the argument that FBW is great, per se and that it probably saves more lives than it exposes to severe risk, but in those few cases when mechanical failure/sensor failure or human failure (lack of correct situtaional awareness) is thrown in then FBW logic may just take you to places you don’t expect, haven’t ever experienced, and perhaps cannot quickly recognise, especially when assorted (possibly apparently “illogicially matched” ) audible or visual alarms and warnings are going off all over the “office” too.
As ever, statistics wll show that FBW is 999.9999999% reliable – problem is, when it goes wrong, or its failure is misunderstood or misinterpreted, the end result may well be 100% failure for those aboard 🙁 .
Then again, in an aircraft which still has mechanical linakeges between stick/rudder and control suraces, a pilot can also make errors of judgement, so neither full-FBW (or “fly by algorithm” as test pilot John Farley calls it), nor manual control are failproof. In both cases, pilots can still get into serious trouble if they fail to recognise what’s going on when the unexpected situation arises.
Not sure I agree with the “Stuntman” suggestion as such, but yes, it does perhaps seem time to reconsider the degree to which commercial crews are been trained in flying by the seat of the pants, in flying at the edges of the envelope (and possibly beyond in the case of stalling), and to recognise the “real situation” no matter what the fancy gizmo’s and systems may be telling you.
Paul F (Not even a PPL, let alone a CPL – just someone with some training and experience in all sorts of “systems” )
Paul FIt was happend in CENTRAL European country, in Czechoslovakia, In Aero Vodochody at that time they rebuilted Li-2F, former OK-GAD of ČSA, later number 2209 of Czechoslovak air force, into Wellington OJ-F.
Well, they didn’t quite rebuild the Li2 into a 100% replica Wellington, did they?
More like they created/fabricated a large scale “representation” of a Wimpy, albeit one that looked tolerably like a Wimpy if you weren’t too critical – for example, they had to leave large “slots” in the fuselage to allow propellor tips to run through. It was probably adequate for a film/TV project, but I’m not sure many would flock to see it taxi past at an airshow?
But, that project didn’t ever fly (so far as I am aware), and it started with the substantial remains/hulk of a whole aeroplane as a basis. Thus the Li-2 build is hardly of the same magnitude as a rebuild to flying conditin of a “new” or “rebuilt” Wellington…. and, IMHO an Li2-based recreation project would be unlikely to gather much public support or funding. How many enthusiasts would throw money at a Li2 conversion/recreation of a ground runner “looky-likey” Wellington? Not very many I suspect…
As others have said, the “Fly again, Wellington!” project could theoretically succeed, but only if those leading it start off with a realistic expectation of what they are undertaking, a realistic understanding of the challenges they face (what level of tech documentation will CAA require for a flyer), and a realistic estimate of the likely costs of all aspects of the re-build they will encounter (starting with first nut and bolt/rivet, up to expected annual operating costs and revenues for a flyable Wimpy on the UK airshow circuit in say 2025 or 2030). They also need to work out a fully costed budget/financial plan highlighting how project costs will be spread out across the duration of the project, (i.e. how big their coffers need to be at key stages etc) , including a number of “contingency” options (e.g what if viable pegasus engines cannot be found (can they fund new build engines a(and a spare) from blueprints etc), what if the UK financial situation worsens – how would that affect any pldged income, what if the current project leaders/visionaris leave the project (through ill health or worse) etc), what if the proposed former RAF Honeybourne site was ever sold from under them…
From the facebook page I suspect they are a long way short of that level of understanding at this tttime, and thus I fear that, however good their intention, the notion of a flyable Wellington rebuild is likey to fail.
Sopwith.7f1/BobT – Please note, this is not simply “nay-saying”, that is realistic evaluation of the project based on info in the public domain. That said, the FB page is a little vague as to stating what the “end point” intent of the project actually is… building a large scale flying model, or gathering all the “bits” of Wellington into one place, and possiby even incorporating them into another Loch Ness “R-Robert” type rebuild would be more feasible, and require far less resources than any notion of rebuilding an airworthy example.
If the project owners really do have all info to hand, and believe they have the wherewithal to succeed, then good luck to them, I really do look forward to seeing a restrod/rebuilt/100% facsimilie of a Wellington flypast at Flying Legends 2025 or 2030. It would make the FW190 projects pale into comparison….
…but I’m not holding my breath at this stage.
Paul FWhat Wellington?
…’build from scratch and fly, Wellington!’ is more accurately what they are proposing!
Indeed, this project/proposal/pipe-dream makes resurrecting the Vulcan, or even the resorations of the Beaufighter or Blenheim/Bolingbroke(s) at Duxford look like a walk in the park…
Yes, with sufficient funds absolutely anything is possible, even manufacturing a new-build Wellington from the blue-prints (and even recreating the necessary blue-prints from the two existing examples if necessary), but funds and resources required would be horrendous, and can you imagine the level of documentation needed to get any sort of Permit to Fly from CAA/EASA or whatever body would be responsible.
As with many previous posters, even if I reach my “three-score years and ten”, plus a good few extra years as a bonus, I don’t think I’ll live to see this happen.
I reckon there’s more chance of Mr C unearthing a pristine “ready-to-fly” Spit from beneath Burmese soil than this reaching fruition…
Paul FYet again, the barbaric and cowardly acts of a few nutters/extremists will result in the remaining (and peaceful) 99.999% of their religion being viewed with suspiscion, fear, or even (unjustified) hatred, by many other people.
Thinks: If the extremists truly think their cause is just, then why are they ashamed to show their faces while committing the act? You would think their religious zeal would make them proud of their work in attacking the ‘infidels’, and thus happy to show their faces whilst engaged in their acts…
Lets hope the cowards are swiftly caught and brought to book.
Sincere condolences to those who have lost friends and loved ones in the attack.
Sign In
