Paul FThose links refer to the difficulties of recovery, and the confusion over responsibility, but does not mention funding and costs, which is surely the crux of the matter.
If it is the case that the deceased are left in the crash site as a money saving measure, that is a disgraceful and shameful outcome.
While my heart agrees with Propstrike’s sentiments, my head asks who would be (or should be?) responsible for the costs of any such recovery?
The aircraft operator?
The families of the deceased?
The New Zealand Government (who appear to have jurisdiction over that area)?
The Canadian government (the State in which the aircraft was presumably registered)?
In the latter two cases would it be fair to have their nation’s taxpayers foot the bill for something which is of little, if any, relevance to 99.99% of them?
And is it sensible to put even more lives at risk, given the location involved?
I’m not saying it is right to leave the crew there, nor am I trying to play Devil’s advocate, but surely there has to come a point where the risks, and costs, have to be considered alongside the families’ (presumed?) wish to have the bodies of their loved ones brought home.
I’ve never really thought about it before, but would I wish others’ lives to be put at risk trying to recover my body if I were to be lost in a plane crash… and who should foot the bill of any such recovery?
Someone somewhere has to pay – either directly, indirectly via passenger/operator ticket surcharges into some “recovery fund” insurance pot , or very indirectly via national agencies funded by State taxation on every taxpayer.
Is there an IATA type agreement on this topic – i.e. if an accident lies on your territory then you have the responsibility to fund any recovery? And should/must the recovery effort be funded up to a pre-determined international limit per person on board – or should the recovery be funded at all cost regardless of number of people lost, difficult terrain etc?
Sorry to hijack the thread, and no disrespect of the lost crew intended.
Paul F
Paul FThrust 2, will be at the Coventry Transport Museum, tomorrow Sat 5th.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
She’s housed there on a permanent basis Jim, along with Thrust SSC.
And, so far as I know, it’s still free admission to the museum, though you have to hand over a few quid for a simulator ride that “recreates” one of Thrust SSC’s fast runs.
Well worth a visit if you are in Coventry.
Paul F
Paul FThrust 2, will be at the Coventry Transport Museum, tomorrow Sat 5th.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
She’s housed there on a permanent basis Jim, along with Thrust SSC.
And, so far as I know, it’s still free admission to the museum, though you have to hand over a few quid for a simulator ride that “recreates” one of Thrust SSC’s fast runs.
Well worth a visit if you are in Coventry.
Paul F
Paul FPoor design or poor cleaning…. ?
The ways are simple to prevent dust/dirt within the terminal especially where it is in the visible areas of passengers/staff.
The cross beams (metal and roof support structures) can regularly be blown free of dust (now that years of dust/dirt have settled on these structures they will obviously have to be wiped clean) using elevating platforms. (They have many elevating platforms in use within the terminal already)
… The dust/dirt on the secure walkways can be cleaned periodically by Amey/OCS with access to the secure walkways being provided by someone having authority to open the doors and ensuring they are closed after the cleaning operation.
…. Why then between BAA and BA can these simple housekeeping and maintenenece measures be NOT put in place in their flagship terminal at LHR?
Yep, that just about sums it up. Whomever designed the building leaving all those horizontal areas exposed no doubt either disregarded the build up of dust completely, or assumed the building owner woud put a suitable cleaning procedure and schedule in place to keep the surfaces clean.
Makes you feel quite queasy when you realise much of the dust is probably dead skin-cells from all the passengers who have passed through the terminal, so simply blowing it off the ledges onto the floor, and/or any other surfaces below, may not seem a desirable solution – probably need to vacuum and damp-wipe it all away, and then repeat the process every three or six months to prevent it building up again.
Perhaps all those “trendy” exposed beams/surfaces suddenly seem a little less attractive when you see what is collecting on top of them…:(
Paul F
Paul FHi Robert,
Nice photos, what was the magnification on the ‘scope?
Cheers
Paul F
Paul FAndy,
Thanks for your talk last evening. I think a number of those of us who attended left with very mixed feelings…
Gratitude that you and your colleagues have not yet given up trying to resolve so many cases where the last resting place of an “Unknown Airman” can clearly be be linked to a specific name at Runnymede, but there was also much dismay (or stronger) that MoD seem unwilling to get involved, and in some cases seem happy to walk away from cases that can clearly be resolved, thus effectively denying relatives an answer to their long standing question “I wonder what happenned to him/her…”.
So very different to the US attitude which means they still have a team who actively work to repatriate their “lost” colleagues, even after all these years. Is it so wrong to expect MoD to continue to work to retrieve those who gave their lives for their country? As you hinted, I suspect cost has much to do with MoD attitude.
For any forumites who get a chance to hear Andy talk on the subject, I’d say don’t miss it.
Paul F
Paul FStructural integrity has to be proven…
Are there any repercussions from the Galloping Ghost crash?
I seem to remember reading that anyone who had ‘modified’ an airframe now has to provide some proof that the modification made can withstand the predicted airspeed and aerodynamic loadings, and that the mod has not compromised the integrity of the airframe at those speeds/aerodynamic loads etc. I think the entrant also has to make a statement to the effect that such testing has been done, and that the plane is safe.
There are certainly a number of additions/changes to the 2013 rules when compared to 2012 rules – look on the Reno website and the 2013 rules and regs are published ther, and they seem to bear out my recollection above.
Paul F
Paul FCharlie, I have no particular problem with architects, but I have no time for any ‘professional’ who forgets basic “common sense” when trying to demonstrate to others just how clever he/she can be… 😉
I have no doubt the building meets all sorts of criteria, but if it “fries” things due to the way it’s shape reflects and concentrates sunlight, then that’s a failry fundamental error in my eyes – unless of course it was requested as a design requirement by whomever commissioned the building :D.
Paul FCharlie, I have no particular problem with architects, but I have no time for any ‘professional’ who forgets basic “common sense” when trying to demonstrate to others just how clever he/she can be… 😉
I have no doubt the building meets all sorts of criteria, but if it “fries” things due to the way it’s shape reflects and concentrates sunlight, then that’s a failry fundamental error in my eyes – unless of course it was requested as a design requirement by whomever commissioned the building :D.
Paul FHi All,
One physics expert brought in by the BBC ? in the news programme said it is basic science when building a block with windows that curve the way they do as it will concentrate the heat like a magnifying glass. :stupid:
Yep, physics principles so basic that some smart-ar$ed, over-paid, full-of-his-own-importance and ability :highly_amused:, architect completely overlooked them in his attempt to make a “statement” design that would stand as a testament to his abilities! I suspect he may now be being asked if he might like to consider a change in career…. :stupid:
Short of covering the glass, or “etching”, it to reduce its ability to reflect the light (both of which then detract from the architect’s hoped-for result), then I’m not sure there is an easy solution…short of a fleet of wrecking balls and bulldozers, and a new design. I suppose they could always build a wall in the path of the reflected light, to stop the light energy being focussed on the current “hot spot” – or perhaps they’ll just hope the British weather comes to their rescue by providing less “sunny” days?
Paul FHi All,
One physics expert brought in by the BBC ? in the news programme said it is basic science when building a block with windows that curve the way they do as it will concentrate the heat like a magnifying glass. :stupid:
Yep, physics principles so basic that some smart-ar$ed, over-paid, full-of-his-own-importance and ability :highly_amused:, architect completely overlooked them in his attempt to make a “statement” design that would stand as a testament to his abilities! I suspect he may now be being asked if he might like to consider a change in career…. :stupid:
Short of covering the glass, or “etching”, it to reduce its ability to reflect the light (both of which then detract from the architect’s hoped-for result), then I’m not sure there is an easy solution…short of a fleet of wrecking balls and bulldozers, and a new design. I suppose they could always build a wall in the path of the reflected light, to stop the light energy being focussed on the current “hot spot” – or perhaps they’ll just hope the British weather comes to their rescue by providing less “sunny” days?
Paul FNice photos Martin – a real “Gerry Anderson” look about her…..
Must be a bu99er keeping the seagull sh1te off all those photo-voltaic panels though – or does she just run a little slower every time they score a direct hit….. :highly_amused:
Paul FNice photos Martin – a real “Gerry Anderson” look about her…..
Must be a bu99er keeping the seagull sh1te off all those photo-voltaic panels though – or does she just run a little slower every time they score a direct hit….. :highly_amused:
Paul FI am no expert, but the overall design of most modern transport helicopters tends to place engines and gearboxes on top of the cabin, presumably to maximise cargo/pax capacity in the cabin, thus making them appear to be naturally “top heavy”. Short of putting flotation bags on some sort of widely spaced “outrigger” bars I suspect most floating helicopters would be prone to “falling over” in heavy seas, or if landed in a hurry in similar sea states. I guess there is always a trade off between ease of escape and maximum revenue per flight.
Fewer pax = easier exit if thing go wrong, but less revenue per flight, and far more flights needed per annum – at some point the increased number of flights to shift same number of people must hit a point where reliability concerns would mean more accidents per annum, though less pax involved per accident.
As ever, no doubt its all about statistics and balancing risk versus cost/profit. Never an easy decision, and always a decision that hindsight tends to judge harshly when things go wrong.
Would there be enough demand for a special “non-invertable” or “quick self-righting” deep sea support helicopter to be designed and built, when modification of exisiting types is still viable? Maybe a more stringent set of CAA/FAA/EU regs regarding “floatability” and “survivability” in rougher sea states would be a good first step? However, in cases of sudden/critical machinery failure, over a hostile environment like the North Sea, its always going to be difficult/expensive to increase the odds of a 100% survivable outcome 🙁 .
Paul FWasn’t there so can’t really add any comment about what the Vulcan did or didn’t do at Waddington.
However, I would offer the comment that the camera can often lie, especially if the aircraft in the image is almost vertically above you when you take a photo, and there is nothing in the image to give the viewer a clue as to where the horizon is/was when the image was taken. And if the sun is throwing strong shadows, this can even add to the misinterpretation as the shaded areas may not be showing the lowest surfaces of the aircraft(relative to the ground).
Imagine standing on a crowd line looking north with a low sun shining from strongly from say your left hand side (the west). If the aircraft is at 90′ to the crowd line, (heading north) turning right, in a 90′ banked turn, and is very close to the crowd line (or even above the crowd line) then you take photo looking straight up, with the longest axis of the viewfinder parallel to the fuselage, there will probably be no horizon captured in the image, and the topside of the aircraft will be in deep shadow.
Now take the image/photo and turn it through 90′ on the desk(or sreen) in front of someone, and it would be fairly easy to misinterpret the image as being that of a near-fully inverted aircraft…
So, photo’s alone may not always be showing quite what they seem, unless you can be sure you know where the aircraft was relative to the photographer, at what attitude, where the sun was relative to the photograher and aircraft, and which orientation (portrait or landcsape) the camera was in, when the image was taken.
Paul F
Sign In
