https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/ca...se-least-1-killed/XXVPO2SJWRCSLNH2X2P4K73GGI/
2 dead, 3 injured when car goes off Edmonds ferry dock following police chase

Those fools in the water are dumber than a bag of hammers.

 

Harsh but maybe the solution is to not ride across the tracks with a train present.

 

Cliffhanger
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/6Wt7auOUgAo

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/25/us/alaska-cargo-ship-vehicles-sinks-pacific.html

 

Minutes before landing, pilots of AA Boeing 787-9 realized this kind of aircraft was not allowed to land at Naples Airport

​

Pilots of American Airlines flight AA780 were only made aware of the error when air traffic control informed them, while they were in the initial phase of descent, that they would not be able to land, as JonNYC points out on X.

 

Minutes before landing, pilots of AA Boeing 787-9 realized this kind of aircraft was not allowed to land at Naples Airport
View attachment 351752​

At first, I was assuming that the pilots made a mistake by not checking the required runway length at the intended destination (which is one of the things that every pilot-in-command is explicitly tasked with doing prior to every flight). But, like everyone, pilots get complacent and don't routinely verify things they already "know", like the ability to land at airports that they routinely land at.

Perhaps my assumption was based on the headline claiming that the pilots realized that the runway was too short.

Perhaps it was reinforced by the lead paragraph that stated that the 787-8 was the only version of the 787 that was authorized to land on the airport's single 2630 m runway.

But then the article gets muddy. It talks about the -9 being 20 ft longer than the -8, but otherwise there being very few differences, the main one being passenger capacity.

So now the focus seems to have shifted to passenger capacity and not runway length.

Then it shifts to claiming that the issue is the RFFS (Rescue and Fire Fighting Services) rating for a particular runway (as opposed to being for the airport) and that Naples is RFFS-8, which is acceptable for the -8, but that the -9 requires RFFS-9.

But it doesn't say anything about what the difference is between RFFS-8 and RFFS-9, let alone what the difference is between the 787-8 and 787-9 the makes the latter need an RFFS-9 rated facility.

It makes no sense the a rating for Rescue and Fire Fighting Services is going to be dependent on runway length, or that the rating is for the runway specifically (though that is conceivable). It seems plausible that the rating might be influenced by passenger capacity, and since that was highlighted as "the main" difference between the two, that seems pretty reasonable.

Nope.

Anyone Googling "RFFS-8 vs RFFS-9" immediately discovers that the rating is based solely on aircraft dimensions.

https://www.boeing.com/content/dam/boeing/boeingdotcom/commercial/airports/faqs/aircraftarff.pdf

The break between the two is 61 m (200.1'). The 787-9 has an overall length of 62.8 m (206'), while the 787-8 comes in at 57 m (187'). That 19 foot difference (something the article mentioned only in passing) is what puts the -9 into the higher category.

Yet another example of shoddy "journalism".

Now, a mistake WAS made. But who made it? At the end of the day, the pilot-in-command is responsible for everything. But that's too simplistic. Airlines (in the U.S.) operate under FAR Part 121 which, among other things, requires that aircraft operations be carried out in conjunction with a flight dispatcher. I haven't delved into the division of duties, but would not be surprised to find out that it is the flight dispatcher's responsibility to determine things like whether the aircraft is authorizeed to operate out of the intended airports (as well as lots of other legal issues associated with international flights).

As for the runway length issue that the article outright claimed was too short, assuming that the article is correct and that the Naples runway was 2630 m long (and I would want to verify that, since the article botched so much else), the max landing distance for the -8 is 1520 m and for the -9 is 1738 m, both comfortably within the capabilities of a 2600 m long runway. The max takeoff distances of both exceed 2630 m (2820 m for the -8 and 3170 m for the -9), but that's not a huge issue. Commercial aircraft routinely have to takeoff light (usually on fuel) to operate out of the shorter runways they serve.

 

This is great news!:

Concorde: First Supersonic Passenger Aircraft in the World to Return in 2026


​

The new Concorde will remain true to its iconic silhouette but will be 50% lighter and use advanced composite materials and Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF), cutting emissions by 80%.

 

This is great news!:

Concorde: First Supersonic Passenger Aircraft in the World to Return in 2026
View attachment 351797
​

The article sounds like a bunch of snake oil to me.

 

The article sounds like a bunch of snake oil to me.

I have my suspicions too. Very little technical detail given. Can this wonder machine really be air-ready and certified for passenger use by Jan 2026? There seems to have been little (any?) reporting on its development over the last N years. Has a fleet of them been built in secret?

 

I have my suspicions too. Very little technical detail given. Can this wonder machine really be air-ready and certified for passenger use by Jan 2026? There seems to have been little (any?) reporting on its development over the last N years. Has a fleet of them been built in secret?

Others are suspicious as well…
https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1ll4x9l

 

AI is going to make life tough for a lot of people, many for whom life was tough already.

 

After taking a closer look at the article, I visited the website of the company supposedly responsible of bringing the plane back and found it rather suspicious too. In fact, there's a (non-working) link that allows you to buy tickets in advance... and that's a big, outstandingly fat red flag to me, among other details that I'd rather not mention here.

The article has a dash of credibility to it, the company's website doesn't. My apologies for posting that crap ...

 

And speaking of frauds:

How a fake astronaut fooled the world, broke women’s hearts, and landed in jail
For years, Robert Hunt convinced everyone he could that he was a NASA astronaut. The truth was anything but.


​

Over the next two days, Dublin embraced its visitor from the final frontier. "We stayed at the Shelbourne hotel," Hunt told me. He sipped tea with the city's Lord Mayor, Ben Briscoe, and smiled for photos. Hunt told Briscoe that the British prime minister had arranged for him to be married at Westminster Abbey — a rare privilege reserved for members of the British royal family and a select few others. Briscoe realized that Hunt was "not the full shilling," a spokesperson later told the Associated Press, but politely let him carry on.

 

Wind power is dangerous!

 

Wind power is dangerous!

View attachment 351988

Just another day at the shop.


Wind Power takes-out Solar power.

 

Miracle Movers

 

CHP reported that a Possible DUI and speeding were the cause of the crash
The Driver was transported to a local hospital with unknown injuries.

 

In 2020, a metro train in Spijkenisse, Netherlands, overshot the tracks and was miraculously caught by a giant sculpture shaped like a whale’s tail. The artwork, fittingly named Saved by a Whale’s Tail, prevented a 30-foot fall and likely saved the driver’s life. Although never intended as a safety feature, the sculpture became an unexpected hero.

​

 

Circa 1939:

​

 

Circa 1939:

View attachment 352137​

Circa 2025: