If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#581
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off or Landing
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:04:33 -0500, "Roger (K8RI)"
wrote in : On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:45:47 +0000 (UTC), Ilya Zakharevich wrote: IMO, what AF 593 shows is that one should consider a possibility of "the second party" initiating a maneuver with so high-g that the pilot So far there is absolutely no indication that such a maneuver took place. The plane came in low and landed short of the runway. It then skidded across the grass. All survived with a few reports of injuries. ... Wrong incident: Aeroflot Flight 593 was an accident on March 23, 1994 in which a Russian Airlines (RAL) Airbus A310-304 passenger airliner, registration F-OGQS, operating on behalf of Aeroflot, crashed into a hillside in Siberia. All 75 passengers and crew were killed. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#582
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off or Landing
John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:47:00 GMT, "David J Taylor" wrote in : Mark Robinson wrote: [] You can't shield the antennae, even in a brand new aircraft. The antennas are outside the metal cabin, the potential source of interference is inside. Your point? Obvious! |
#583
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off or Landing
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:04:33 -0500, "Roger (K8RI)"
wrote in : In general the smaller aircraft are much more agile than the much larger passenger aircraft. That is why the competitive aerobatic aircraft as small, light weight, and have lots of power. The controls are quicker but the big difference is the large aircraft have far more inertia, or momentum. Meaning it takes them much longer to respond to the control inputs . That is not to say they are not quick and powerful, they are. You have to think much farther ahead with the larger aircraft. Even going from a 172 to my Beech there is a big difference. I think that's a bad analogy, and with all due respect, bad reasoning. What I think matters in agility are factors like airframe strength, power to weight, wing loading and control surfaces, as well as speed and load. It's quite possible for a much larger and heavier aircraft to be more agile than a smaller aircraft (think F-18), and modern commercial airliners are quite agile for their speed, able to sustain much higher forces than most small general aviation aircraft. An airplane is an airplane is an airplane and most fly much alike when straight and level. landing one is an entirely different proposition. where that extra and substantial momentum, plus the added speed makes a big difference. I think that's an over-generalization -- high performance aircraft often have major differences in flight characteristics as compared to low performance aircraft. My understanding is that flight crews were advised to abandon the B-58 if the flight control system failed because of the near impossibility of flying the aircraft manually. There is one other difference too. Wing loading per square foot. What may seem like a slightly bumpy ride in the airliner, when done in a 172 would probably have the non pilot with his head stuck in the "lunch bag" in short order. Turbulence is FAR more noticeable in the smaller planes. I think that's much more a function of speed, altitude and mass (inertia) than of wing loading. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#584
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off or Landing
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:42:56 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in : John Navas wrote: On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:47:00 GMT, "David J Taylor" wrote in : Mark Robinson wrote: [] You can't shield the antennae, even in a brand new aircraft. The antennas are outside the metal cabin, the potential source of interference is inside. Your point? Obvious! Not to me. Lots of holes for RF to leak out of (think windows), and LOTS of cables to pick up RF even with shielding. And not antennas are completely outside the aircraft (depending on the aircraft) -- some are behind RF transparent sections of the skin. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#585
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off orLanding
|
#586
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off or Landing
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:25:19 GMT, John Navas
wrote: On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:58:12 +0900, Bernd Felsche wrote in : John Navas wrote: On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:59:52 +0900, Bernd Felsche wrote: What is _meaningless_ is paranoia based on mythology. But such is reflected in the rules. What you believe is meaningless. What you can measure is meaningful. Keeping in mind that all that can be measured isn't necessarily important. Those are just opinions, and not ones I share. That might work for you if what you're doing isn't based on science and scientific method. Air safety isn't improved by ritual without reason. Insults only serve to discredit your own point of view. If I was to pick the one person in this thread that has been the most insulting to other posters, it would be you, John. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#587
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off or Landing
|
#588
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off or Landing
John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:42:56 GMT, "David J Taylor" wrote in : John Navas wrote: On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:47:00 GMT, "David J Taylor" wrote in : Mark Robinson wrote: [] You can't shield the antennae, even in a brand new aircraft. The antennas are outside the metal cabin, the potential source of interference is inside. Your point? Obvious! Not to me. Lots of holes for RF to leak out of (think windows), and LOTS of cables to pick up RF even with shielding. And not antennas are completely outside the aircraft (depending on the aircraft) -- some are behind RF transparent sections of the skin. But where the antennas are located /should/ make a substantial difference to the susceptibility of the systems to which they are connected, and being outside the cabin box is a good first step. Cables, if properly chosen, installed and maintained, should not be an issue for devices like cameras - they need to shield from much greater interference sources (such as all the electrically operated stuff). David |
#589
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off orLanding
For the past two hours I have been trying to glean the highlights of
this thread. There are some very bizarre approaches to the very simple rule of not using your camera during take-off or landings I worked in the airline industry for 30+ years before retiring last year. The rules are there for very good reasons and boo-hoo on you if you can't use your camera during this period. The airline is there to provide you with transportation and not necessarily to entertain you or provide you with photo ops. It may have been mentioned in one of the over 600 posts but I didn't see it. The last thing I want to see is a loose flying camera tossing about the cabin when you hit turbulence. Most turbulence are in closer proximity to the ground and some if can be extremely violent. This is another reason that the airlines do not want things in your hands during this period of time. What is the harm in accepting the fact that you have to keep your camera in your bag for the first and last periods of a flight. So you don't get to take a picture of your house as you fly over it. Why is it that there are so many people with cameras (I don't think they have yet earned the badge of photographer) believe that all rules apply to everyone except them. |
#590
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off or Landing
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:08:58 -0500, tony cooper
wrote in : On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:25:19 GMT, John Navas wrote: Insults only serve to discredit your own point of view. If I was to pick the one person in this thread that has been the most insulting to other posters, it would be you, John. You are of course free to think and say whatever you want, no matter how baseless. That you see other points of view as insulting says much about you and your respect for others. -- Best regards, John Navas http:/navasgroup.com "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The eagle is landing but what's wrong with him? | John H | Digital Photography | 16 | January 7th 06 02:59 AM |
MOON LANDING HOAX VATICAN - MAKES IT TO WIKIPEDIA | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 1 | January 2nd 06 10:50 PM |
MOON LANDING HOAX VATICAN - MAKES IT TO WIKIPEDIA | Crash Gordon | Digital Photography | 4 | December 27th 05 07:15 AM |
Annecy an pictures from aircraft | Claude C | Digital Photography | 1 | April 15th 05 08:13 PM |
Annecy and pictures from aircraft | Claude C | Photographing Nature | 0 | April 15th 05 03:05 PM |