I learned about flying from this, too...

On Feb 6, 1:02 pm, Michael Ash wrote:
In rec.aviation.student wrote:
Can you imagine a busy airport with pilots walking around on the
runway between takeoffs every minute or so? What a plan for disaster.
"Airliner Crashes While Trying To Avoid Pilot Strolling On Runway"

Not to mention that the titanium strip which caused the Concorde crash
came off a flight which took off only four minutes earlier. To do this
properly you'd have to inspect the entire runway between every takeoff.
This is impractical, to put it mildly.

What's more, the proximate cause to the fire which caused Concorde's
demise was a burst tire. It seems obvious to me that any passenger
aircraft should be able to survive a burst tire without a violent crash.
The fact that Concorde couldn't do so is a design flaw, and making sure
that aircraft won't catch fire and crash into a hotel after a burst tire
seems like a better solution than reducing the capacity of commercial
airports by an order of magnitude so that the runways can be inspected
before every single takeoff. If I'm wrong about this, I'd appreciate any
of the more knowledgeable people on the group correcting me.

More than likely, a superficial runway inspection,
either by the controllers, the pilots or anyone
walking the runway would have noticed that debris
that destroyed the Concorde, and costed a $Billion.

How about using one of them fella's who's looking at
peoples shoes for bombs, why is that good to do?

Flyers need to learn from mistakes, this thread is
about check-lists. Who didn't follow the list, where
is the responsibility?
If it happened once, it will happen again, just a
matter of time.
You take care.
Ken

Rogue Amoeba Software

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Feb 6, 1:37 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

I was too damn busy looking at
the instruments to see that hazard.
Why are you looking only at instruments on takeoff?

Well I mentioned I had an IP in the right seat.
(Bob Burton out of the Oshawa Flying Club,
he's the best I ever had, he liked to have fun).

Following rotation and beginning ascent, I was
looking at RPM, rate of ascent, and KIAS,
something to do with best climb rate, the IP
ordered.
Ken

He wasn't that good. He should have slapped you in the head and told you
look out the window.

On Feb 6, 2:49 pm, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Feb 6, 1:37 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

I was too damn busy looking at
the instruments to see that hazard.
Why are you looking only at instruments on takeoff?

Well I mentioned I had an IP in the right seat.
(Bob Burton out of the Oshawa Flying Club,
he's the best I ever had, he liked to have fun).

Following rotation and beginning ascent, I was
looking at RPM, rate of ascent, and KIAS,
something to do with best climb rate, the IP
ordered.
Ken

He wasn't that good. He should have slapped you in the head and told you
look out the window.

LOL, he practically did!
IIRC, I think all he said was "birds", he was a man
of few but good words, well he was smirking and
I was blushing, it was my faux pas, I knew that in
a split second.
BTW, at that time (80's), I was paying $35/hr rental
on a C-152 and an extra $15/hour to have the IP in
the plane, $50/hour....worth every penny.

If you fella's find a good IP, take him out for a spin,
like you would have a date for dinner, they are worth
their weight in gold for the relation of experience.
Ken

In article ,
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

Steve Hix wrote:

I think it was
controlled by a PDP-11/70 ... wonder what it might be equivalent to
today.
I have a watch with more computing power.

Sure, but will it heat your house?

Of course it will. If it makes sure I get to work on time.

Indirect heating is good...

Or move it, given enough hydraulics? :}

Given enough hydraulics, I'd have to say yes.

In rec.aviation.student Al G wrote:
If I'm wrong about this, I'd appreciate any
of the more knowledgeable people on the group correcting me.

Ok,

"The fact that Concorde couldn't do so is a design flaw, and making sure
that aircraft won't catch fire and crash into a hotel after a burst tire
seems like a better solution than reducing the capacity of commercial
airports by an order of magnitude so that the runways can be inspected
before every single takeoff."

Is a run on sentence. There, you are corrected.

I suppose I asked for it. Well, thanks!

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

In rec.aviation.student Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Feb 6, 1:02 pm, Michael Ash wrote:
What's more, the proximate cause to the fire which caused Concorde's
demise was a burst tire. It seems obvious to me that any passenger
aircraft should be able to survive a burst tire without a violent crash.
The fact that Concorde couldn't do so is a design flaw, and making sure
that aircraft won't catch fire and crash into a hotel after a burst tire
seems like a better solution than reducing the capacity of commercial
airports by an order of magnitude so that the runways can be inspected
before every single takeoff. If I'm wrong about this, I'd appreciate any
of the more knowledgeable people on the group correcting me.

More than likely, a superficial runway inspection,
either by the controllers, the pilots or anyone
walking the runway would have noticed that debris
that destroyed the Concorde, and costed a $Billion.

How do you propose to allow people to walk a 3-mile runway between every
single takeoff and landing without completely destroying the airport's
ability to carry traffic?

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

On Feb 5, 9:49*am, Ricky wrote:
On Feb 5, 9:27*am, Larry Dighera wrote:

I realize you were just a student pilot at the time, but I find it
curious that the word checklist is not mentioned anywhere in your
article. *

A checklist is/was used most of the time, possibly skipped if in a
hurry as I was.
Even now, I find myself not using a checklist sometimes for preflight
once I get to know a plane.
It's easy to get complacent, especially with a small Cessna.
I'd be curious to know how many actually carry around the checklist
outside while preflighting?

Ricky

Me. Every time. I can't help myself.

It's a ****-up that the Concorde pilot whose
plane dislodged runway debris, failed to review
his runway and killed himself, all his passengers
and destroyed an expensive A/C.

You're kidding, right?

On Feb 6, 4:03*pm, Flydive wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:

I flattened the descent and eased back the
throttle.
Ken

And why would he flatten his descent? Aren't you supposed to climb after
take off? :-)


He means he flattened the descent of the Earth beneath him!

Phil

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

More than likely, a superficial runway inspection,
either by the controllers, the pilots or anyone
walking the runway would have noticed that debris
that destroyed the Concorde, and costed a $Billion.

The crash happened at CDG airport, which is the busiest in Europe at over
half a million flights annually. It has four runways:

08L/26R 13,829'
09R/27L 13,780'
08R/26L 8,858'
09L/27R 8,858'

That's about 14 km worth of runway, and there's a flight roughly every 60
seconds. A full walking inspection of just one of those 13,800' runways
would take around 45 minutes, but you'd need to do it every minute or two.
Clearly it wouldn't be practical to insist that the pilots do it since by
the time they've finished, another 40-50 flights would have used the runway.

How about using one of them fella's who's looking at
peoples shoes for bombs, why is that good to do?

Since a shoe inspection guy can't run that fast, you'd need to have
some 20 of them strolling back and forth to ensure constant complete
coverage between each flight.

The debris that did in the Concorde was a thin strip just 3x50cm, which
they probably would have missed anyway since the runways are 150' wide;
more so at the shoulders were presumably your shoe inspectors would be
walking since jetwash isn't the most comfortable thing in the world.
Really you'd need one guy on each side of each runway.

So: 40 shoe inspectors for each 13,800' runway walking back and forth;
80 shoe inspectors total to cover both. We'll discount the 8800' runways
since presumably they won't be in use at the same time as the 13,800' ones.

How about you suggest it to the airport authorities and get back to us
with what they tell you? Or where they tell you to go as might be the case.