Close call:

 

Wow and yeah, I agree with the police officer, that was a whole bunch of luck all in one shot.

Ron

 

Close call:

Notice that the flashing light signals WERE working.

EDIT: Corrected typo -- slashing -> flashing

Maybe if they HAD been slashing lights they wouldn't have been ignored.

 

Notice that the slashing light signals WERE working.

Yeah, I caught that and wondered just when they began flashing. We have a town on the west side of Cleveland called Laklewood. The Norfolk Southern train tracks run along the Lake Erie shore line through Lakewood. Heavily traveled rail system running East and West. Trains run through there at 50 to 60 MPH and many times people, cars, trucks and anything you can imagine meet a train with bad results. Unlike the video the gates down and people insist on trying to beat the train. I never did understand why people drive around the gates? The lights alone are good enough for me.

Ron

 

Yeah, I caught that and wondered just when they began flashing. We have a town on the west side of Cleveland called Laklewood. The Norfolk Southern train tracks run along the Lake Erie shore line through Lakewood. Heavily traveled rail system running East and West. Trains run through there at 50 to 60 MPH and many times people, cars, trucks and anything you can imagine meet a train with bad results. Unlike the video the gates down and people insist on trying to beat the train. I never did understand why people drive around the gates? The lights alone are good enough for me.

Ron

Same here - I figure if it's a tie I lose... big!

We have numerous crossings that don't have gates, only lights (I don't know if they have bells because it's been a long time since I've gotten stopped at one).

Prime example of the fact that equipment breaks eventually and it is up to us to be reasonably diligent -- we get pampered and expect and demand that equipment never break and always works.

I don't know if there will be a law suit come of this -- you can bet there would be a big one if someone had gotten hurt.

 

I went back and looked and it appears that the lights also came on quite late. But I'm not positive because sometimes when I play it I see the light in the lane flash and sometimes I don't, so there's some hinky playback artifact going on. But looking at the light in the oncoming lane it seems like they start flashing about the time the car ahead of the cop reaches the tracks. That would probably make sense since, if the short delayed the activation, the lights would normally come on first for several seconds to let the tracks clear before the gates come down.

 

What kind of an idiot dares to light up a smoke on a plane nowadays?

https://www.foxnews.com/travel/smoking-vistara-airlines-plane-delay

Airline officials revealed a male passenger started smoking as the plane was pulling away from the gate

 

What kind of an idiot dares to light up a smoke on a plane nowadays?

https://www.foxnews.com/travel/smoking-vistara-airlines-plane-delay

Hi,

Wow that's nuts...3 hour delay. Lucky it wasnt a cigar they would have evacuated the plane and burned it just to make sure they bugged everyone good enough that day

It's a shame the way plane travel has changed due to the various problems around the world and at home.

 

What kind of an idiot dares to light up a smoke on a plane nowadays?

https://www.foxnews.com/travel/smoking-vistara-airlines-plane-delay

What I've never heard is a rational explanation of why things like this result in such long delays for the flight. I'm sure it's probably because some process has to be followed and the right authorities have to physically show up and then statements have to be taken right then and there, but it sure seems like a much more streamlined process could be developed. The moment the person is off the plane and it is safe to proceed, the plane should proceed. The person is in the custody of airline/airport security at that point and let them deal with it from there, taking statements from aircrew and passengers later as needed. Given modern communications capabilities on most flights, it would be a simple matter to have authorities take statements from witnesses during the flight.

 

It's because it was tobacco.....a cigarette. One has a duty to make a huge fuss about it.

And the plane has to be aired out. Hazmat situation. Second hand smoke is a killer.

 

What I've never heard is a rational explanation of why things like this result in such long delays for the flight.

What if aborting takeoff affects the airport's logistics of programmed takeoffs and landings? Probably part of the cause of the delay is re-queuing the plane for takeoff?

 

What if aborting takeoff affects the airport's logistics of programmed takeoffs and landings? Probably part of the cause of the delay is re-queuing the plane for takeoff?

Not a simple thing.

 

What if aborting takeoff affects the airport's logistics of programmed takeoffs and landings? Probably part of the cause of the delay is re-queuing the plane for takeoff?

No, not three hours. Planes almost never push exactly when they are scheduled and airport operations are primarily dealing with requests in real time. There is no preplanned queuing of aircraft for takeoff -- it would fall uselessly to pieces almost immediately. The next plane to take off is the next plane that can physically access the runway and that is ready to takeoff. Besides, airports, even busy airports, also have tons of unscheduled traffic mixed in with the scheduled traffic, too. As a private pilot flying into commercial airports I would often get asked by the tower while I was taxiing to the runway whether I needed to do a runup and if the answer was yes they often had me taxi beyond the runway turnoff and do my runup there so that commercial aircraft (who usually do all their checks while taxiing) could go ahead. Once I was done with my runup I would tell the tower that I was ready for takeoff and they would then hold one of the commercial guys while I slotted back in. The biggest headaches (for everyone) was when a small aircraft requested a three-minute wait for wake turbulence avoidance (which the tower has to grant). Then they would usually see if they could gather several small aircraft together before they started the three minute clock and once it expired cleared out all the small guys before continuing with the big guys. Even then, I don't think I ever had to wait more than ten minutes or so before they had me going again -- they realize that even the private pilots are spending a couple dollars a minute while that engine is turning. They had lots of games that they learn to play, like seeing if there's enough of a gap between heavies to get in a couple lighter aircraft that don't generate the kind of dangerous wake so that not all of that three minutes is wasted. The point is that they are constantly adjusting to the situation as it exists in the moment -- the amount of lookahead planning they do is measured in minutes.

Airlines, on the other hand, play other games to deal with situations as they try to move their entire fleet around the system in a coordinated way. I always thought one of the more inventive ones, worked out between the airlines and air traffic control, was the "ground hold" where an aircraft going to an airport that currently had long holding times for landing aircraft could opt to accept a hold time on the ground before departure, where they were burning a lot less fuel, in exchange for being deemed as having arrived in the pattern that much earlier than they actually did arrive. This eventually became a formal and nonvoluntary program known as the Ground Delay Program.

 

What kind of an idiot dares to light up a smoke on a plane nowadays?

https://www.foxnews.com/travel/smoking-vistara-airlines-plane-delay

Did you happen to notice the country where the flight originated? Nopw check the latest air travel news from that same country. Not a good track record.

 

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/02/0...rn-back/index.html?r=https://edition.cnn.com/

The plane was headed to Maui's Kahului Airport from Los Angeles International, but turned back three times, said Alex Da Silva, the airline's senior manager. Twice, the plane had already taken off.

 

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/02/02/us/hawaiian-flight-33-turn-back/index.html?r=https://edition.cnn.com/

You would think turning back once was enough to cancel the flight. They need to carry a lot of fuel for such a distance and does not leave a lot of margin for error. Every time they have to veer off their planned flight path is fuel used that is reserved for emergencies.

 

You would think turning back once was enough to cancel the flight. They need to carry a lot of fuel for such a distance and does not leave a lot of margin for error. Every time they have to veer off their planned flight path is fuel used that is reserved for emergencies.

Yeah and think about it. Between California and Hawaii how many places are there to land? That also works both directions.

Ron

 

You would think turning back once was enough to cancel the flight. They need to carry a lot of fuel for such a distance and does not leave a lot of margin for error. Every time they have to veer off their planned flight path is fuel used that is reserved for emergencies.

That wouldn't have been a concern. The flight crew knows full well what their minimum fuel load requirement for the flight is and if they don't have it then they would just take on more fuel before the next takeoff. At LAX the fuel they would have been using would almost certainly be one that could be onloaded while the passengers were aboard provided local rules didn't prohibit it (and they usually don't).

I would imagine having three unrelated system failures on one flight is going to raise some eyebrows and will prompt a review of Hawaiian Airlines' maintenance record. But these things DO happen and my understanding is that Hawaiian Air has a superb reputation on safety.

 

I would imagine having three unrelated system failures on one flight is going to raise some eyebrows

Same as throwing three pairs of sixes in a row when tossing the dice... (the record I've personally witnessed is five in a row) ... and yet it does happen...

 

Same as throwing three pairs of sixes in a row when tossing the dice... (the record I've personally witnessed is five in a row) ... and yet it does happen...

Yep. Not only can it happen, but you expect it to happen with a particular frequency (statistically speaking, of course). None-the-less, when it DOES happen it is not unreasonable for people to ask that the dice be inspected or changed because they have cause to suspect that the dice MIGHT be loaded. Interestingly, the reverse is true. If the history of all the rolls of the dice were recorded and it was found that it NEVER happened, then that would also give reasonable cause to suspect that the dice aren't fair.