I havent read the article to be honest with you, but arming pilots…hmmm ok there are very good for and against arguments on this subject, but in most aircraft hijacks there is normally more than 1 of them,so by the time the pilot has “volleyed” off a couple of shots, hijacker # 2 or 3 is doing the same to the pilot

but instead of arming pilots with a firearm,why not give them TASERS or CS-Spray, it eliminates the risk (no matter how small, it’s a risk) of the pilot missing and hitting an innocent passenger or damaging the aircraft,and in the process it doesnt give hijackers 2 and 3 another loaded weapon or more amunition

What was that Airport film that had George Kennedy in it, as the Ground Engineer?
was his name McKlusky or something along those lines?

Errrr….far from being grounded, didn’t the F104G remain in service despite the series of fatal accidents that earned it the nickname “Widowmaker”?

I’d say it was a pretty poor example from your point of view, seahawk. 🙂

Definition of a pilot who is an optomist

An F104 Starfighter pilot who quits smoking!

Great news from Boeing looking forward to the future….but it slides into a AvsB debate…..Lets have something different!!!! a BombardierVsEmbreaer debate instead….More than 2 airplane companies out there! :o)

Is that it????

Just what i was thinking….expected something bigger and thousands of Papparazi with Branson standing next to some semi naked models posing etc etc etc etc

Slightly off topic, but i remember an Inflight Attendant telling me that Ryanair doesnt sell all the seats on it’s aircraft,as i was coming back from Girona (barcelona) and we was told that we couldnt sit in the first 3 rows, until the Seat belt light had been switched off, now im not sure if this is just limited to Girona or Network wide

Quick edit, Britannia used to operate 757’s to Girona , so it cant be a shortish runway being factored into the weight and balance?

I think that the appropriate people to decide whether Phuket Air should or should not resume services to the UK are those from the Department for Transport, not us armchair aircraft engineers. With very few exceptions, the aviation industry operates on the principal that if an airplane (or airline) is judged as being satisfactory by the authority in the country in which is it based, it is OK everywhere else – if this principal was not true, we would never have seen any Russian aircraft in the UK because almost every one of their designs would not have gotten a western certificate of airworthiness.

In exceptional circumstances the Department for Transport may inspect and bar certain airlines, certain aircraft, or all aircraft from certain countries from operating into the UK. It has been reported that inspections of Phuket Air planes were made at LGW, and whilst ever a banning order is not in place (as it already is for a very few airlines) then I see no reason why Phuket Air should not continue to operator or be barred from the UK. Beyond that, it is for the Thai authorities to decide whether Phuket Air retains its operating licence, or not.

Andy

Whilst i agree with you above, but isnt it possible, that in some country in the world (i’m not going to name any examples) that aviation safety inspectors are open to bribes to grant operating certificates or maintanence safety inspections?…. There some country’s out there, on every continent on this planet, where the appropriate authorities are v.poorly paid and they look at ways of “increasing there incomes”

So with the fuel management system upgrade, there will be no more VS A346’s landing at Amsterdam then!

Read the initial AAIB report findings in Flight International, and not being technically minded, it looks like a mare of a system to operate if the computers go t-ts up!