The issue goes beyond masks or not. If the airline says "that's our rule" then the passenger is obligated to follow the rule or not fly, even if the passenger thinks the rule is stupid. Airlines are generally interested in acting in what they think is the best interest of both their companies and their customers and following the law/regulations in all its forms, because it serves them to do so. I, as a passenger, am not interested in flying with a passenger who intentionally flouts any rule, no matter how stupid they might think the rule is. If an airline has a potential passenger who has stated or acted in a way that ignores a rule, the they have every right, and even duty, to refuse them carriage. One might think that it's "my right" to carry a loaded firearm on board, but most people don't think so, and those who do simply are prevented from flying, as they should be.

(Written on 2020年 10月 30日)(Permalink)

While the timing may not appear to us mere mortals to be bad, it's pretty hard to argue with David Neeleman's record for success in the industry. Perhaps he sees opportunities we don't.

(Written on 2020年 10月 30日)(Permalink)

I worked for TWA in the early days of the 747. Two of our stations, LAX and SFO, both had over-the-wing Jetways, to enable two-door boarding/deplaning, something everyone thought would be needed, given the pax load of a 747. The agents, even experienced Jetway drivers, were very concerned about making a driving mistake with bridge and damaging the airplane. The mating section of the bridge was cantilevered out over the wing and the physics meant that the end of the Jetway would move around, a lot, until mated with the fuselage. Eventually, with all factors considered, we decided that single door boarding/deplaning would suffice. The otw at SFO ended up as a storage area for office supplies.

(Written on 2020年 09月 11日)(Permalink)

Like the Bible, NEJM can be misinterpreted by those who start with a foregone conclusion. NEJM says that masks don't protect the WEARER, and virtually any person knowledgeable in the subject will tell you that. They're not intended to protect the wearer, they're intended to protect the community at large FROM the wearer, and if everyone wears a mask, whether or not they are symptomatic, the risk to the world at large is thus minimized. That assumes, of course, that one cares about anyone else.

(Written on 2020年 09月 11日)(Permalink)

Further, as it happens, I understand the frequency of the precession was a harmonic of the wing's natural frequency and therefore amplified the forces until structural failure. I've got about 1,500 hours in the P-3A and B, and so had a keen interest in what happened. I always found it to be a great airplane, with exception of its pitch stability due to the Navy's reduction in fuselage length (we had noticable problems with airsickness, since the operating crew sat sideways) and its stiff landing gear, which made it a challenge to land smoothly.

(Written on 2020年 08月 22日)(Permalink)

Question: Isn't it precession? As in the propeller "disk" began to precess, like a toy gyroscope precessing as it slows down?

(Written on 2020年 08月 22日)(Permalink)

Absolutely. Tarmac is short for "tarred Macadam", madacam being a mixture of uniformly sized pebbles and gravel, originally developed by Scotsman John Macadam. Later tar was added to help keep dust down. It would be just as logical for journalist to say, "The plane was parked on the blacktop (the American term)" vs tarmac. One could even say, "The plane ran off the runway onto the grass." What a silly thing about which to get one's knickers into a twist.

(Written on 2020年 08月 14日)(Permalink)

Let us remember that 1.5 is an arbitrary, reasonable number established by humans with experience and education in their respective field. We could make it 2.0 have cost the flying public millions, if not billions, of dollars because of the added weight of the structure, or we could go the other way, and be closer to potential loss of life. Yes, sometimes judgements regarding other factors like $ get in the way of those numbers, but in general those numbers (like 1.5) have proven their worth as a good balance of safety factors, engineering costs, manufacturing costs, and economics. For example: When the 747 did a qualifying evacuation using an average cross-section of population including elderly, adults, children, physically challenged, etc., one of the requirements was that half of the exits (there were a total of 10 on the -100 model)had to be rendered inoperative, and which ones were inoperative were not known to the flight attendants onboard. The evacuation had to be completed in

(Written on 2019年 11月 29日)(Permalink)

I understand that there was such a flight not long ago, and the captain raised a few eyebrows when she welcomed the passengers on the airline's "unmanned" flight. After the announcement sunk in, there were many smiles all around on a very pleasant flight.

(Written on 2019年 10月 26日)(Permalink)

But it did cost him some things-time, effort, all those things that money can't buy. Obviously you've never worked for an organization that has a 24/7/365 staffing requirement and the attendant people impact that implies. Perhaps human and familial interactions mean nothing to you, but to a lot of people they're pretty valuable.

(Written on 2018年 12月 29日)(Permalink)