Glad I'm not a passenger

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
32,934
I did the Amtrak ride to our son's wedding from Savannah GA to Seattle WA on their northern route and back and back on their central route, never again! Trains are definitely not what I remember from the 50s as a child and the meals that came with the tiny cabin are pretty mediocre at best. At 6'-2" I am convinced they are designed by "Little People" just to torture us big guys.
My parents and I took the California Zephyr from Denver to Anaheim thinking that it would be wonderful to ride a train through the mountains. My stepmom was very serious about forfeiting the return tickets and buying one-way plane tickets when it was time to come home. We didn't, but all the way back we lamented that decision. Overall -- horrible experience. At that time the only place that you could smoke was the snack counter in the bottom of the observation car, which meant that the observation deck was practically unbearable with a thick cloud of cigarette smoke. Then there were all the kids running up and down the aisle at all times of the day and night. I can say that we did get to see some extremely pretty sights, but not nearly good enough to be willing to repeat the experience. The food in the dining car was pretty decent, but not good enough to justify the prices they charged. On the way back we stocked up a couple bags of snacks and sandwich makings.
 

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
13,722
A trip like that, and a ride on the Orient Express are in my bucket list...
Hi,

My bucket list has a hole in the bottom so I literally don't have to do anything. :)

It would have been fun to attach reins and a saddle to the top of the body of the Concord and ride it across the pond that way. Caution, do not try this without a windbreaker jacket on though.
 

Thread Starter

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
8,788


Attridge flew the prescribed profile and upon expending the ammunition, was suddenly confronted by the shattering of the forward armored windscreen caused by some sort of object. He immediately throttle back and pulled up to reduce speed to prevent the windscreen from caving in and at 13,000 and 200 KIAS he turned back towards Calverton. The only damage he could ascertain was a gash to the right intake lip and that every time he took the engine up above 78% power, it began to run rough.
 
Last edited:

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
13,722
If I remember correctly, the F-4 was the first aircraft to shoot itself down in level flight.
Hi,

Wow that's nasty, really nasty. I guess this is yet another illustration of modern jerky engineering.
Imagine having to tell the family what happened. Would they even believe it.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
32,934
Hi,

Wow that's nasty, really nasty. I guess this is yet another illustration of modern jerky engineering.
Imagine having to tell the family what happened. Would they even believe it.
I don't know why it would be jerky engineering. In war, people can and do get killed by their own ordinance, in the air, at sea, and on the ground (and, eventually, in space). If you want to survive, you have to push the limits and have equipment that can be pushed. The other guy wants to live, too, and they are going to push their limits, too. The result is that sometimes you push them too hard and kill yourself. A few hundred years ago, you put more powder in the cannon so that you can hit the enemy from beyond their range -- if it works, you win and get away unscathed, if it doesn't, your cannon blows up in your face. Pretty much from the beginning of aviation, you drop a bomb from a very low level to avoid certain hazards and risk having the fragments from the explosion take you out.

As an operator, be it a gun crew or a pilot or whatever, you have to know the limits in which you can operate. Throw something off an airplane, and there is trajectory to that thing. As a pilot, it is your responsibility to know when and where that thing might be so that you don't try to occupy the same space at the same time.
 

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
13,722
I don't know why it would be jerky engineering. In war, people can and do get killed by their own ordinance, in the air, at sea, and on the ground (and, eventually, in space). If you want to survive, you have to push the limits and have equipment that can be pushed. The other guy wants to live, too, and they are going to push their limits, too. The result is that sometimes you push them too hard and kill yourself. A few hundred years ago, you put more powder in the cannon so that you can hit the enemy from beyond their range -- if it works, you win and get away unscathed, if it doesn't, your cannon blows up in your face. Pretty much from the beginning of aviation, you drop a bomb from a very low level to avoid certain hazards and risk having the fragments from the explosion take you out.

As an operator, be it a gun crew or a pilot or whatever, you have to know the limits in which you can operate. Throw something off an airplane, and there is trajectory to that thing. As a pilot, it is your responsibility to know when and where that thing might be so that you don't try to occupy the same space at the same time.
Hello again,

Some very good points thanks.
Along those lines, I knew a guy whose friend got killed by an ejector seat that was falsely triggered in a small military plane. Nasty.
If i remember right he told me the guys head was under the dash or whatever they have in those planes, while on the ground.
He was quickly decapatatored.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
32,934
Hello again,

Some very good points thanks.
Along those lines, I knew a guy whose friend got killed by an ejector seat that was falsely triggered in a small military plane. Nasty.
If i remember right he told me the guys head was under the dash or whatever they have in those planes, while on the ground.
He was quickly decapatatored.
Despite what movies and the like make it seem, ejecting from an aircraft is truly a last-ditch measure because it is a life-threatening, potentially career-ending event.

Every time I climbed into an F-15 cockpit I was a tad on the nervous side because you had to lean completely over the seat (without touching it) to see if the Fired Warning Indicator showed that the seat thought it had been fired, meaning that any movement of the seat would could cause the control system to fire to keep the seat upright. Stupid place to put the FWI. If it was fired, you then had to get yourself off of the aircraft without touching the seat, which was easier said than done. I'm so glad I never saw one of those that indicated anything other than Safe.
 

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
13,722
Despite what movies and the like make it seem, ejecting from an aircraft is truly a last-ditch measure because it is a life-threatening, potentially career-ending event.

Every time I climbed into an F-15 cockpit I was a tad on the nervous side because you had to lean completely over the seat (without touching it) to see if the Fired Warning Indicator showed that the seat thought it had been fired, meaning that any movement of the seat would could cause the control system to fire to keep the seat upright. Stupid place to put the FWI. If it was fired, you then had to get yourself off of the aircraft without touching the seat, which was easier said than done. I'm so glad I never saw one of those that indicated anything other than Safe.
Hi,

Wow doesn't sound like a nice situation to be in.
I take it you were in one of the armed forces. Thanks for your service really!
I don't know how I managed to stay out of it during a pretty violent time, but unfortunately I lost two uncles in WW2. Never got to meet either one of them. One was in the paratroopers and was shot as he came down somewhere over Germany.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
16,353
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-trucking-company-drinking-driving-1.6924015
Quebec trucking company ordered to reinstate driver fired for drinking and driving

A Quebec trucking company has been ordered to reinstate a driver who was fired after she drank at least nine beers before she lost control of her truck on a Pennsylvania highway.

The driver's actions amounted to serious misconduct, but her drinking was the result of a disability — alcoholism — and trucking company Groupe Robert should have made a reasonable accommodation for her, labour arbitrator Huguette April said in a written decision on July 18.

"The night of the accident, she needed to drink," April said. "She admitted that even though she knew she shouldn't, the need was stronger, like something that she couldn't control."
Marc-Andre Gauthier, a spokesman for Teamsters Canada, the union that represents the driver and challenged her dismissal, said it has an obligation to defend its members in work-related matters, regardless of the circumstances.
If you can't control your drinking, you can't be a truck driver.
 

Thread Starter

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
8,788
So ... the poor thing has a disability... and that's being too emotionally weak to control her drinking... whilst the Canadian Teamsters has an obligation to defend its members, but not the rest of the population that is at risk of being killed because of someone else's "disability" ?

The world has been turned upside down.. the lunatics are now running the asylum...
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
16,353
Speed kills.
https://news.yahoo.com/one-dead-traffic-collision-gateway-124813057.html
"The Ford Raptor was traveling at a high rate of speed and entered the intersection on a red light and collided into the tanker," a police news release stated.
Gonzalez died from his injuries. His passenger, Melissa Tristan, 36, of Socorro, was also injured in the collision, police said. The tanker truck driver, Esteban Rios, 51, of El Paso, was not injured.
Wow, his passenger survived that crash.
 
Top