Paul FYes, here’s a taster of what you can do with them…
http://www.thelastnewspaper.com/future-life/google-dog-meet-google-cat-gps-pet-tracking/
but there are alternative systems that could be utilised for external wear, here’s one.
http://mrtracking.com/dog-tracking-chip-never-lose-your-dog-again/
Err, so we would track and monitor the whereabouts of, and cross reference and look for “suspicious activity patterns” of, every single immigrant in real time?
Or would we just download their movements periodically to see where they have been since last data download…?
Not sure this would have prevented an attack such as Paris…okay it might help identify exactly who had perpetrated it, and possibly speed up working out who they had met up with and thus help round up potential accomplices, but unless you have the abiity to stop every group of immigrants as soon as, and every single time, they start to meet up in a public space that poses a risk to others then what purpose does GPS tracking serve?
Even assuming we had the ability to track, process and identify potentially “suspiscious” behaviour of hundreds of thousands of “tagged” people in real time, how long does it take to unload an AK47 or detonate an explosive belt that has just been handed to them by someone they have possibly never even met in person before. In order to respond to every single “potential” threat posed by a gathering of a few tracked immigrants, we would also need to have a massive number of (I assume armed?) responders who could attend each and every such “suspicious” gathering within moments of it starting to happen.
And even if you could GPS track every immigrant, how would that stop attacks by, or partly involving UK “born and bred” extremists who have been here all along, but who are not rquired to be “tagged”?
Do you seriously think this is workable solution…?
Paul FGreat photos Martin, looks like I was standing about 100 yards south of you, on the other side of the runway “gap”. Great memories of a great day.
Looking at your photos, and mine (which I haven’t yet had time to “finesse”), it is hard to believe just how grey and grim the weather had been just a couple of hours earlier. The weather gods certainly smiled on Goodwood on 15th Sept.
I am so glad, and fortunate, to have been at Goodwood on 15th Sept, and then at Duxford on 19th Sept – two very special occasions – fitting tributes to all those involved in the Battle of Britain.
Both are events I will never forget – the skies seemed full of Spitfires and Hurricanes that week…still gives me “goosebumps” thinking about it.
Paul FExcellent photos Blue-2 – I love the one of her climbing away against the sunset clouds.
I never thought they’d achieve their dream getting her back in the air when the VTTS project was first announced….but I am so glad they proved me, and so many others, wrong.
I am so fortunate to have been given the opportunity to see her display a number of times over the last six or so years, and to have seen the reaction of my son, and of other youngsters to her, people who would otherwise only have seen Vulcans on film, or in photographs, and who would never have been able to appreciate her majesty, or hear her famous “howl” first hand.
Yes VTTS had problems along the way, but “hats off” to them for not only returning her to the skies, against all the odds, but for keeping her there for so much longer than we (and they?) ever dared dream. And thanks to all the supporting organisations like Rolls Royce, Marshalls and Airbus etc for helping too.
Well done one and all, she will be sorely missed.
Paul FIn today’s “blame” culture, maybe alerting people to the risks they are taking when deliberately placing themselves in a particualr spot to watch the show may alert those very people to the fact that they will have to accept responsibility if they have picked an inadvisable/ obviously high-risk location and the worst happens, and that they cannot not just expect to blame the pilot, the airframe mechanic, the airshow organisers, or the landowner etc?
If airshow organisers alert nearby landowners that their field is seen as an emergency area if a display pilot needs it “in extremis“, then the landowner may be a little more circumspect about letting (and especially charging to allow) members of the public stand in it during the show.
Passing through a “higher risk” zone on a nearby road/motorway or railway line in a moving vehicle/train etc is one thing, and those involved are clearly bear little, if any, responsiblity if they are hit by an aircraft in difficulties.
However, anyone deliberately standing/sitting/taking photos/picnicing in such a higher-risk area needs to be seen, and understood by all parties including themselves, to have made a conscous decision to do so, whereby they must accept the risk/liability for their own action.
In the latter case the person sitting/standing/photgraphing/picnicing must accept liability for having made an adequate risk assessment (as might be made by any person of average intelligence etc) prior to taking their actions, and thus be considered a “conscious participant” in any subsequent unfortunate event, whereas a person passing by the same spot in a moving car/train would be usually considered an “innocent passer-by”.
If nearby landowners “opening” their fields to spectators (paying or otherwise) are also seen to be consciously putting those viewing the show from that land at increased risk due the location of the land, they are likely to be held liable by their insurers, in which case such landowners may choose to mark their land as “Closed – No public entry” during airshows etc.
Anyone entering that land, including anyone accidentally “straying” off any public footpaths etc and then watching the show, might be considered as trespassers, and find they are not covered by the landowner’s insurance.
Its a complicated area, with very fuzzy edges as to responsibilities, but to my mind, anyone who consciously decides to spend time watching/photographing an air display from a single location anywhere other than inside the boundaries of the “venue” proper, must surely have to accept liability for their own actions, at last in part….?
Paul FMmm. Those etched silhouettes are thought provoking when you realise what they mean.
Yes, especially when you think that each of the “heavies” probably represents the loss of eight or more men…. Reading the “numbers” of aircrew that were lost (in a book) is one thing, but seeing that same info portrayed in such a simple way really does give me a humbling sense of the scale of the losses.
Those glazed panels always make me stop and think…and offer a silent prayer for (and thanks to) those American crews who never came back.
We will remember them…
Paul F£7500 buys what exactly….?
.
What exactly will the promised £7500 buy?
The remains are already positively confirmed to be the remains of a P38, that crashed/force-landed during WW2..(sorry I’m not too familiar with the fine detail, but I know others on here are), so there’s no need to spend much/any money on a consutant archaeologist “establishing” just what the site consists of, when it occurred, what was it’s purpose, how large the site is etc…:rolleyes:
The location is well known, so there is no real need to survey/GPS plot it down to the nearest mm. :stupid:
And anyway, the condition/extent of the site/wreckage cannot be fully assessed until/unless the airframe is again exposed – and £7500 will definitely not cover the cost of building a suitable tide-proof caisson (sp?) around the site, and than carefully pumping out/digging down to expose the remains for a detailled dry/tide-free study…:highly_amused:
Maybe for £7500 they’ll erect a “visitor information/interpretation board” on the nearby beach to explain to passers-by/visitors what they cannot see beneath the shifting tide and/or sands (for 99% of the time)… that’ll bring the crowds flocking in won’t it? :sleeping:
Or maybe they’ll mark the site with a few buoys to avoid it being mangled by passing boats whenever the tide covers it – which will do little to preserve it, and would probably prove counter productive in that amateur treasure-hunters will then have a very good idea where to dig to unearth bits and pieces to take home as souvenirs. 😡
Perhaps somone should ask the Deputy Culture Minister exactly what the promised £7500 will be spent on, and how it will benefit this partcular site? 😉
Paul FNice photos Brian
We managed to catch up with some of the Shauns during a day out with family in Bristol, but they look pretty amazing “en masse” in Covent Garden.
Paul F
Paul FNice photos Brian
We managed to catch up with some of the Shauns during a day out with family in Bristol, but they look pretty amazing “en masse” in Covent Garden.
Paul F
Paul Fthe regulations probably state that the vehicles have to pass the emissions test and the Volkswagen vehicles in question were passing the emissions test albeit by recognising that they were being tested and modifying their performance specifically to pass the test.
Yes indeed, if that proves to be the case, then VW were obeying the strict letter of the Law (meeting test criteria), whilst clearly ignoring the spirit of the Law (minimising pollution for every mile driven)…
I suspect the US lawyers may do very well out of this argument (as ever!).
As with any testing, unless it is independently policed/verfied, and also performed at random, then it is at risk of being abused, especially if the tester has a vested interest in achieving best possible results.
If VW engineers are smart enough to design an engine management system that can spot when the car/engine is being tested on a rolling road, and then modify it’s performance accordingly, their engineering skills are to be praised, though the ethics and morals behind those skills are perhaps less praiseworthy!
In EU much vehicle testing is actually performed by independent testing agencies, eg NCAP (who do far more than just their widely known “crash testing”), so the system is perhaps less open to abuse, but I have no doubt that any manufacturer sending a vehicle out for testing will first ensure it stands the best chance of achieving the best possible results…
At what point does “fettling to achieve best possible results” stray into “deliberate modification of performance to met targets”?
Will other manufacturers be found to have adopted similar “underhand” techniques? Time will tell, but if there is big money involved, then it seems entirely possible…
Paul Fthe regulations probably state that the vehicles have to pass the emissions test and the Volkswagen vehicles in question were passing the emissions test albeit by recognising that they were being tested and modifying their performance specifically to pass the test.
Yes indeed, if that proves to be the case, then VW were obeying the strict letter of the Law (meeting test criteria), whilst clearly ignoring the spirit of the Law (minimising pollution for every mile driven)…
I suspect the US lawyers may do very well out of this argument (as ever!).
As with any testing, unless it is independently policed/verfied, and also performed at random, then it is at risk of being abused, especially if the tester has a vested interest in achieving best possible results.
If VW engineers are smart enough to design an engine management system that can spot when the car/engine is being tested on a rolling road, and then modify it’s performance accordingly, their engineering skills are to be praised, though the ethics and morals behind those skills are perhaps less praiseworthy!
In EU much vehicle testing is actually performed by independent testing agencies, eg NCAP (who do far more than just their widely known “crash testing”), so the system is perhaps less open to abuse, but I have no doubt that any manufacturer sending a vehicle out for testing will first ensure it stands the best chance of achieving the best possible results…
At what point does “fettling to achieve best possible results” stray into “deliberate modification of performance to met targets”?
Will other manufacturers be found to have adopted similar “underhand” techniques? Time will tell, but if there is big money involved, then it seems entirely possible…
Paul FThere seemed to be Spitfires wherever you looked, tearing past, or soaring skywards in long twisting strings, on and on, for maybe 10 glorious minutes. until finally they turned downwind, one by one , to settle on the grass, and MH434 flew on alone, curving and rolling across the East Anglian sky, the most lyrical demonstration of everything the Spitfire represents.
Congratulations to Brian Smith who had the vision to put the whole ‘set piece’ together, and the 17 pilots who flawlessly performed it.
Yes indeed, it was definitely one of those “You had to be there…” moments.
Well done to all involved, and especially to Brian Smith for coming up with the concept for such an epic “three dimensional” finale to the show.
Paul F
Paul FSpare parts? Engines? None left, no chance.
mmitch.
Indeed, it appears so at first glance…
However, given a near-infinite pot of money, it would theoretically be possible to have new engines, and all necessary spares manufactured from new by the OEMs (assuming they can be paid enough to be bothered to do so). And, with another chunk of that infinite pot of cash, it would, theoretically be possible to do a full refurbishment to airworthiness of one, or more, of the retired airframes – or even to build a new example from the ground up. Granted, it is very, very unlikely to happen, but it is not (quite) impossible. Likewise, all the special engine airflow management systems that were removed upon retirement would need to be found and re-installed, or re-engineered from scratch…
But, with Airbus having withdrawn design authority for the type (IIRC), no-one will be able to gain the necessary permits/licences to fly one as a commercial venture as none of the aviation authorities will grant approval for commercial use of a type unless there is a suitable body to act as design authority holder. And surely, commercial ops are the the whole point of the exercise?
Again, were that infinite pot of money to be SO infinite that it can persuade/pay Airbus to re-open and hold the design authority etc, then that hurdle could theoretically be overcome too.
So, never say never!
But in reality I agree it isn’t ever likely to happen, as I doubt anyone has (or ever will have) deep-enough pockets to persuade all the necessary players to play ball.
Paul FNice photos Anna.
From the photos you and Martin have posted you get no idea just how foul the weather was in Sussex yesterday morning, nor how it closed in again yesterday evening.
The unique nature of the event, the stunning setting with the South Downs as a backdrop, and the weather ‘window’ all came together to create a truly magical atmosphere.
Those of us who witnessed it first hand were so very, very, fortunate.
Paul F
Paul FNice photos Martin – haven’t been through mine yet. What a magical two hours that was. Will we ever see anything like it again I wonder..?
What a great event, and good to see some many spectators donating to the RAFBE collectors, and many donating paper rather than loose change too. Was a little surprised to see how many spectators there were there, but despite the delays, and the muddy car-parks and footpaths, the atmosphere was great too.
Well done to all involved at Boultbee and the Goodwood Estate, and thanks to all the aircraft owners, pilots and ground crews for making it happen.
A fine tribute to “The Few”.
Paul FI doubt there would have been any suitcases in the passenger cabin ?
Given the size of some “cabin bags” I saw being squeezed into the overhead lockers of a BA A319 recently, some cabin bags do seem to warrant the term “Suitcase”!
But regardless of that, what possesses people to put their possessions before their own personal safety – instinctively grabbing a handbag (for ladies of course 😉 ), or grabbing your passport/phone or even a sweater/jacket/laptop off the seat next to you, or from under your feet is one thing, but deliberately stopping to open a locker, reach up to grab your bag, then man-handling it down the cabin is beyond me….
I guess that as soon as one passenger does it a number of others will follow suit… and the cabin crew will be more concerned about getting pax down the slide quickly than standing and arguing with, or trying to forcibly remove bags from, the inconsiderates.
Personally I’d like to see stewards grab such bags off pax and throw them (the bags, not the pax!) to one side of the chute (all in the name of preventing damage to the emergency slide of course 😉 )…but I suppose that would risk falling bags hitting any pax who may already have gone down the slide and be wandering around in a state of shock/fear/confusion beneath the door….
Sign In
