In any big business. no one is white. But the justice is not about who steals but about who gets caught.

I accept that McLaren should be penalised for what can be seen as “handling stolen goods”, but the point that Ferarri seem keen to cover up is that it was (alledgedly) one of their own staff who actually stole the information, and not a McLaren employee. Unless there is proof that McLaren instructed/paid the Ferarri employee to/for stealing the info for them, I do not believe they can be accussed of theft.

Ultimately, I agree with Stewarts comments in his last post, get all the drivers into identical cars with identical engines, tyres, body work, and fuel capacities, ban refuelling or tyre changes, and then see who is the best driver, not which team can develop the best car, which ultimately turns into “The team who will win is the team with the deepest pockets”. Anyone who watches the lower racing formulas will tell you that those races are often more closely fought, and more exciting to watch, as the cars are more evenly matched, and driver skill plays a far larger part in the race.

Paul F

“F1 – A Sport or a Soap Opera?” – Discuss

After all you cannot accuse a homeowner if their house is stolen from – or in these PC days can you?

Cheers

Stew

No you can’t, but if I have shown my neighbours my valuable possessions, and then leave my front door open (i.e. don’t take reasonable precautions to secure my property), is it fair to blame only the thief, don’t I have to accept some responsibility for leaving the door open?

Who at McLaren knew the “stolen” info had been received apart formt he drivers? It is posssible that people further down the management tree knew, but deliberately kept the info from those higher up. Maybe people had their own personal reasons for not telling their superiors (perhaps someone there already felt aggrieved that they had not been given all they felt they were due?).

If the two drivers involved were granted immunity by admitting their parts in events, then why not prosecute Hamilton? A cynic might say that someone somewhere did not want to risk missing the potential publicity for the sport that a Rookie winning in their first season might generate….

So, McLaren were penalised and justice was done….(so say those who may not be familiar with the real politics and power games behind F1).

For those who still see Ferrari as whiter than white, it was interesting to see that Ferrari were the only team who said they did not know of the race directors instruction to start on “full wet” tyres on Sunday? Was it a coincidence that Ferrari mechanics kept their cars’ tyres covered on the grid until the very last possible moment, thus preventing other teams from seeing they were running the wrong tyre type until it was effectively too late to protest? All the other teams knew about the race director’s decision, which was sent out via email in good time (I believe).

Ferrari were then instructed to stop and change tyres (or risk being instructed to withdraw both cars from the race), thus they were effectively instructed to correct the fault, thus giving them the opportunity to fuel their cars to the end of the race, whilst ostensibly following race director’s orders and correcting their “inadvertant” tyre “error”.

Had the safety car not been brought it in, then Ferrari’s action would probably have put them at the front of the field, with lots of fuel – thus effectively handing them the race while other teams had to stop and refuel.

Later, once their hoped for advantage had not materialised, some might say Ferrari did just enough to cover up their actions by staging further tyre changes and refueling stops – thus effectively preventing anyone from knowing if their cars had been carrying sufficient fuel to go on and win or not.

Would McLaren have got away with the same tyre “mistake” had they been the only ones to disobey the instruction – somehow I doubt it.

In summary, McLaren get heavily penalised two weeks ago for their (alleged) unsporting actions, yet Ferrari emerge scott-free despite apparently blatantly ignoring the instructions of the race director in Japan. Where’s the justice in that?

The record books may well show the Ferrari team as F1 world champions this year, but the results will also show that McLaren drivers won most races, and a McLaren driver will almost ceratinly be world champion – politics permitting.

And who stands to make the most out of the whole soap opera that F1 is becoming? A certain Mr Ecclestone I suspect, who (I believe) still ultimately owns the majority shareholding of the various F1 franchises etc. Yet again, we see proof that there’s no such thing as bad publicity….
’nuff said

Paul F

the airbus thing is amazing, im only amazed that the permanent autopilot allowed the pilot to manouvre the aircraft like that! 😮

Maybe I am incorrect, but I suspect any autopilot and/or terrain proximity system can be ignored, and thus “deliberately” over-ridden. They provide warnings to prevent an accident, but if the warnings are ignored, then an accident is still possible?

Likewise, a computer controlled FBW system may not prevent you doing something inherently dangerous, all it will do is ensure that the aircraft can be flown to it’s maximum performance in the situation without departing from controlled flight. However, if you can apply sufficient bank to dig the wing tip into the dirt without first stalling the aircraft first, I suspect the FBW might let you – or are such systems clever enough to know the exact height of the wingtip above the ground and also able to predict the position and height of any non-permanent obstacles on the airfield?

I doubt the FBW has the ability to predict engine failure due to bird strike, or to predict wind shear or wind shift. In such circumstances the outcome will be the same, the FBW will do it’s best to maximise performance after the event has ocurred, such as to achieve max climb performance if requested by control input, whilst limiting bank to avoid stall/spin entry etc, but if the aircraft is too low or too slow to recover, it may still hit the ground.

It’s a bit like trusting to your ABS when tail-gating on a motorway at 70mph – the ABS will ensure the car stops in the minimum possible distance at any speed, however, that stopping distance will increase with speed (basic laws of physics apply regardless of ABS). So if the ABS can stop the car in say 100 yards at 70mph, and you choose to drive at that speed but at less than 100 yards behind the car in front than you will still hit it if it stops suddenly, all the ABS will do is ensure that you will be hitting it at the slowest possible speed when you reach it.

Likewise, if the Airbus is being flown lower than the operating limit of the FBW would expect, then perhaps sufficient angle of bank could be applied to get the wingtip into the dirt or into an obstacle. Or, if wind speed suddenly dropped by 10mph due to gusting, or an engine failed due to bird strike, then FBW may not be able to compensate for the loss in airspeed or the sudden assymetric thrust before some part of the plane touches the ground – at which point it all gets very unpleasant.

If I am wrong, and FBW really does make the aircraft “idiot proof” and “crash proof” please correct me, but all I believe it does is ensure an aircraft can be safely operated to it’s absolute max performance in any situation. However, if that situation is changed by unexpected external influences, then the FBW may not be able to “re-optimise” things back to the new “maximum performance” as adjusted to suit the new conditions, before the aircraft runs out of height and/or airspeed and hits the ground?

Paul F

Skyraider3D

For what it’s worth I took a Digi SLR Body, a 35mm SLR body, and three lenses, plus a Fuji S5600, laptop PC, camcorder, assorted leads/chargers, battery cells etc in my hand luggage when flying LGW to Orlando at Easter, plus magazines, a paperback, personal CD-player (not yet gone MP3 😉 and all the usual long-haul “necessities”.

No problem checking in at LGW (MYT), and my hand luggage was not weighed, though I might have been in trouble if it had been, as I know it exceeded the hand-luggage weight limit, even if it did fit well within the sizing guage. I just tried not to break into a sweat when the check-in assistant asked to see my carry-on bag and I had to lift it single handly to chest height.

The x-ray team didn’t bat an eyelid at the contents of my bag, even though a mass of gear remained after I’d taken the laptop out for seperate checking.

Likewise, returning from States I had no problem, even though I’d added a fair stack of CD’s full of trip photos to the hand luggage – all very unlike a similar trip in 2005 when the US baggage check inspectors made me unpack a similar level of equipment into open trays for x-ray and then asked why I hadn’t packed “so much of this stuff” into my alreday checked-in luggage.

I’d plan on carrying it all on, so as to avoid it being lost or stolen – don’t forget that on the return flight US officials will always randomly open (forcibly if necessary) a number of checked-in bags for detailled inspection – after which point any obvious high-value goods may become easy pickings for the any dishonest baggage handlers further downstream etc.

As suggested by TEEJ, I’d check with the airline, at the airport in question before hand, and make sure I get their advice in writing in case you meet a “jobsworth” type at the check in.

Also, make doubly sure any gear is fully covered by adequate insurance – I suspect most “standard” travel insurance policies would not cover any photographic gear beyond a small snappy-digicam and a small memory card. DigiSLRs and lenses may well be beyond what many high-street travel policy providers would consider to be “typical” camera equipment 🙁 .

Paul F

And maybe BAA are also working on the principle that if they are asked to scale down their proposal in the first application fight, then they can possibly do so and still end up with a small runway, whereas if they make the initial application for a small runway and it gets rejected then there is no fall-back position they can take?

Not sure how departure and approaches would work with a third, albeit slightly remote, parallel long haul runway, though with a smaller runway operating short haul types then there would potentially be less conflict – as anyone who has been to Kastrup would confirm – they often operate(d) short haul turboprops off a runway that is on an entirely different orientation to that being used for longer haul departures and arrivals. It’s a bit off putting to be sitting in a 737 in the hold/crosswind leg to see smaller turboprops whizzing past a few hundered feet below at right angles to your own flight path!

Any bets as to when first ground gets dug for Terminal 6 anyone :dev2: ?

Paul F

Hi Lee,

A sad day at Shoreham yesterday indeed.

I have just downloaded from my camera chip a very similar photo of you to that from TempestNut – but looking almost straight at me as you rolled out after landing. Drop me a pm with your email addy and I’ll send it to you later this week. Also got a couple of long range shots of you on short finals – again, will send those if you are interested.

Hi Bex,

Found the Denis a couple of times, but you weren’t with her on either occasion, so I couldn’t say hello. 🙁

I might beat you to the sycamore playground in Crawley as my office is at Gatwick, so if I get a chance this week I may try and find the place in question, but I’m in Guernesy Tues, and in Notts on Weds, so you’ll probably beat me to it. Maybe see you there – we’ll be easy to spot the only nutters taking photos of the long grass!

Cheers on this very sad weekend
Paul F

Hi Bex (et al)

I’m planning to be there tomorrow (Saturday), will look out for you. If I see you I’ll say hello.

Shoreham is usually a very good show, with the very scenic backdrop of Lancing College – make sure you’ve got plenty of room on the digicam memory cards.

Lee, if I get any decent photos of the Chippie arriving I’ll PM you

Cheers
Paul F

The flight plan thing is a total red herring.

Moggy

… but gives the US Press the chance to imply that he was somehow acting irresponsibly or rashly by hinting that he did not “plan” his flight in any way shape or form. No doubt it also gives the authorities/FAA indemnity in that they cannot be held in anyway responsible for “approving” his flight over such dangerous terrain, thus ensuring they are free from risk of litigation whatever the outcome of the search.

Unfortunately, it’s not looking good…. makes you realise just how much “wilderness” there still is out there in some areas of what most of us would consider as part of the “developed” world.

Paul F