Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

«‹›2239 »

Mazz: Dec 12, 2012; Orion, this is Sperglord Actual.
Come on home.

The Ferret King posted:

Look it's just a creepy conversation and this thread is starting to sound an awful lot like that chauvinistic Southwest pilot that had the stuck mic.

Since that's my quote, I didn't frame it that way in my mind because she is a legitimate friend but from a random internet forum standpoint I can see the creepiness, so yeah, my bad.

And to contribute something of value to the tread, I had a flight on a United 737 recently with the entertainment center in the back of every seat with a decent DirecTV package available for like $8. Is that relatively common on the rebuilt 737s?

Mazz fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Sep 15, 2014

# ? Sep 15, 2014 02:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 21:35

Kerosene19: May 7, 2007

quote:

Guess what two words can often describe the bitter old women inhabiting the jump seats on US carriers?

Nut slingers?

# ? Sep 15, 2014 02:41

Safety Dance: Sep 10, 2007; Five degrees to starboard!

babyeatingpsychopath posted:

I typically order tonic water and almost always get the whole can without asking.

I then pour an airline bottle of gin in it.

edit: I didn't realize it was specifically illegal to do this, so I guess I'm gonna stop now.

Specifically illegal? How so?

# ? Sep 15, 2014 02:55

Plinkey: Aug 4, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

Safety Dance posted:

Specifically illegal? How so?

Pretty sure it's illegal to bring and drink your own booze on planes (I assume that's what he meant with the little bottles, they are under the TSA regs)

# ? Sep 15, 2014 02:59

Safety Dance: Sep 10, 2007; Five degrees to starboard!

Answering my own question here.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/121.575 posted:

� 121.575 Alcoholic beverages.
(a) No person may drink any alcoholic beverage aboard an aircraft unless the certificate holder operating the aircraft has served that beverage to him.
(b) No certificate holder may serve any alcoholic beverage to any person aboard any of its aircraft who�
(1) Appears to be intoxicated;
(2) Is escorting a person or being escorted in accordance with 49 CFR 1544.221; or
(3) Has a deadly or dangerous weapon accessible to him while aboard the aircraft in accordance with 49 CFR 1544.219, 1544.221, or 1544.223.
(c) No certificate holder may allow any person to board any of its aircraft if that person appears to be intoxicated.
(d) Each certificate holder shall, within five days after the incident, report to the Administrator the refusal of any person to comply with paragraph (a) of this section, or of any disturbance caused by a person who appears to be intoxicated aboard any of its aircraft.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 03:01

Sagebrush: Feb 26, 2012

Snowdens Secret posted:

I'm not getting the hate. Are solid primary colors cheap looking? I am think it looks more interesting than yet another white plane.

Bring back bare polished aluminum, IMO

# ? Sep 15, 2014 03:26

Kilonum: Sep 30, 2002; You know where you are? You're in the suburbs, baby. You're gonna drive.

Bring on the bare polished carbon fiber, IMO

# ? Sep 15, 2014 03:39

Plinkey: Aug 4, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

Sagebrush posted:

Bring back bare polished aluminum, IMO

Ung

# ? Sep 15, 2014 03:57

wolrah: May 8, 2006; what?

Safety Dance posted:

Answering my own question here.

If I'm reading this right, technically it doesn't say the airline had to have served you the alcohol on that flight.

If that airline bottle of gin was initially provided by the same airline it seems like it would be technically legal.

Of course that then begs the question of who got served booze on a plane and still had it when leaving?

I wonder if you were able to buy a bottle from an airline's lounge if that would count.

edit: vvv Agreed, just random bored thoughts. I see a rule, I think about the possible loopholes. One of my friends is an actual lawyer and I'm sure I drive him crazy with stupid hypothetical situations.

wolrah fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Sep 15, 2014

# ? Sep 15, 2014 04:05

Cocoa Crispies: Jul 20, 2001; Vehicular Manslaughter!; Pillbug

If you need to drink on the plane that badly maybe you have bigger problems.

Signed, somebody who got so drunk on Calgary-Atlanta they were still pretty drunk when they got to Ft. Lauderdale.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 04:21

Jazzahn: Jul 3, 2007; Did you just say awesome?

I like this shot of my Cherokee.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 04:39

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Cocoa Crispies posted:

If you need to drink on the plane that badly maybe you have bigger problems.

The best flights are the ones you don't remember.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 05:53

AzureSkys: Apr 27, 2003

Mazz posted:

And to contribute something of value to the tread, I had a flight on a United 737 recently with the entertainment center in the back of every seat with a decent DirecTV package available for like $8. Is that relatively common on the rebuilt 737s?

By rebuilt 37s do you the Next Gens? It's a customer option. They can have them installed when the plane is made, or done after delivery by contract companies. For the older planes they install them usually during big interior updates or heavy checks. I worked on an American Airlines upgrade for 757s a few years back.

Southwest, for example, goes straight from being delivered to a facility nearby to have their TV systems installed by a company called Row 44.

And, word on the street is the new lower winglet isn't showing any improvements, either. But maybe it just needs more time to show any notable data given they've only been in service a short while with a proposed 1.5% increase to winglet performance.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 07:52

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

mlmp08 posted:

Ha, yeah. Frankly the older FAs tend to be better at providing decent service while still knowing how to get poo poo done when some clown can't store their bags properly.

I flew icelandair to the US (only sensible option from where we live, really) and the FA's were *shockingly* competent. I found it funny that they don't have complaint forms in the seat pockets, only "you did awesome!" forms, but filled one up all the same.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 09:06

simplefish: Mar 28, 2011; So long, and thanks for all the ~~fish~~ gallbladdΣrs!

I flew Air Transat to Canada transatlantic, then after a 24hr delay and subsequent 3hr delay, with headphones (normally charged for) givrn free as an attempt at an apology, no seatback entertainment, I think no food? but it was years ago. Anyway I was being generally pissed off, and noticed the FA near me speaking French. When they came round to ask if we wanted anything in English, I grumbled back in French, and, made sure to make it clear that I knew it wasn't the FAs' fault and that they were in the same situation. It was kinda snarky of me but I was feeling snarky.

The guy reappeared ten minutes later with a free glass of Bailey's.

Also I am not French and am not particularly fluent so maybe he apprecated the effort? Hated his bosses? Sympathised? Who knows.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 10:18

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

Generally any display of normal human empathy will get most FA's to try and help you. It's really the best way to deal with any kind of service pro who aren't actively being incompetent/unfriendly (ie: police officers).

# ? Sep 15, 2014 11:15

3 Action Economist: May 22, 2002; Educate. Agitate. Liberate.

Snowdens Secret posted:

I'm not getting the hate. Are solid primary colors cheap looking? I am think it looks more interesting than yet another white plane.

I think it's mostly how solid the blue is. The current paint scheme has that red bottom section that breaks up the big block of a single color.

They also changed the colors to be more pure versions (so it's blue blue, instead of a lighter blue, a real red and yellow, instead of orangey versions). I think -that- part, though, is just us not being used to it.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 12:28

KodiakRS: Jul 11, 2012

MrYenko posted:

Now, air carriers get more direct routing, and much better weather avoidance, flow control, etc, but they also cruise slower, to save fuel.

Internationally, it might be different, since long haul aircraft tend to cruise at a higher Mach

The difference between the international and domestic is not too terribly significant. Above mach .83-.85 you start getting into pretty severe diminishing returns on fuel burn no matter what you're flying. A CRJ-700, a 777, and a G650 will probably cruise within ~20 knots of each other. Sure the 777 and the G650 are capable of going a bit faster but it's going to cost you a LOT of gas for not much return. Ones a RJ, ones a huge wide body, and ones a long range high speed biz jet. Most domestic narrow bodies I've been in the cockpit of cruise in the .78-.83 range so I guess they're technically slower than the international stuff but not always, and even then not by much.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 12:58

Vincent Van Goatse: Nov 8, 2006; Enjoy every sandwich.; Smellrose

Plinkey posted:

Ung

Va-voom.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 13:22

Psion: Dec 13, 2002; eVeN I KnOw wHaT CoRnEr gAs iS

Safety Dance posted:

Answering my own question here.

I'm pretty sure if you want to be "legit" you can hand your unopened bottle of whatever to the FA who pours for you - this discussion has come up before. This is technically serving, thus, compliant with 14 CFR. I'm also pretty sure if you aren't a complete shitheel about it, you will never, ever, ever get caught pouring your own shot into a drink and nobody will care.

There's also some discussion on whether the FAA Cabin Safety Subject Index - where this all comes from - is even legally binding on passengers, but I'm not a lawyer. It's almost certainly against your airline's policies.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 16:48

A Handed Missus: Aug 6, 2012

Oh look, a Cobra owned by some Czech helicopter company.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 18:13

two_beer_bishes: Jun 27, 2004

KodiakRS posted:

Most domestic narrow bodies I've been in the cockpit of cruise in the .78-.83 range so I guess they're technically slower than the international stuff but not always, and even then not by much.

I take position reports over the radio for oceanic flights and .78-.83 covers drat near all the flights (narrow and wide bodies). The 787s I work are normally .85 and occasionally I get a bizjet going .86-.91 (.91 I've seen exactly once).

# ? Sep 15, 2014 18:36

beep-beep car is go: Apr 11, 2005; I can just eyeball this, right?

two_beer_bishes posted:

(.91 I've seen exactly once).

I'm guessing some billionaire that doesn't mind paying the $texas fuel price for the small jump in speed?

# ? Sep 15, 2014 18:53

SCOTLAND: Feb 26, 2004

KodiakRS posted:

The difference between the international and domestic is not too terribly significant. Above mach .83-.85 you start getting into pretty severe diminishing returns on fuel burn no matter what you're flying. A CRJ-700, a 777, and a G650 will probably cruise within ~20 knots of each other. Sure the 777 and the G650 are capable of going a bit faster but it's going to cost you a LOT of gas for not much return. Ones a RJ, ones a huge wide body, and ones a long range high speed biz jet. Most domestic narrow bodies I've been in the cockpit of cruise in the .78-.83 range so I guess they're technically slower than the international stuff but not always, and even then not by much.

We got bored and dialed up to .88 from .85 a few days ago and the burn went from around 4.8 t/h to 6.0 t/h or thereabouts.

Totally uneconomical but it's nice to have the option to overtake someone so they don't block you on the way down :getin:

# ? Sep 15, 2014 18:56

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

A Handed Missus posted:

Oh look, a Cobra owned by some Czech helicopter company.

The loving Hind is a Huge Bitch.

Also:

# ? Sep 15, 2014 19:01

Cocoa Crispies: Jul 20, 2001; Vehicular Manslaughter!; Pillbug

SCOTLAND posted:

We got bored and dialed up to .88 from .85 a few days ago and the burn went from around 4.8 t/h to 6.0 t/h or thereabouts.

Totally uneconomical but it's nice to have the option to overtake someone so they don't block you on the way down

Jesus, how much time would that save, say, NYC-Heathrow?

# ? Sep 15, 2014 19:01

simplefish: Mar 28, 2011; So long, and thanks for all the ~~fish~~ gallbladdΣrs!

People seem to forget that you can stuff eight equipped burly Russians in the back

# ? Sep 15, 2014 19:03

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

SCOTLAND posted:

We got bored and dialed up to .88 from .85 a few days ago and the burn went from around 4.8 t/h to 6.0 t/h or thereabouts.

Totally uneconomical but it's nice to have the option to overtake someone so they don't block you on the way down

# ? Sep 15, 2014 19:08

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

Cocoa Crispies posted:

Jesus, how much time would that save, say, NYC-Heathrow?

Less than twenty minutes.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 19:10

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Is it true airplanes start playing "highway to the danger zone" after exceeding 250kias under 10kft or Mach 0.9?

# ? Sep 15, 2014 19:17

two_beer_bishes: Jun 27, 2004

Shampoo posted:

I'm guessing some billionaire that doesn't mind paying the $texas fuel price for the small jump in speed?

That'd be my guess too.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 19:20

KodiakRS: Jul 11, 2012

Cocoa Crispies posted:

Jesus, how much time would that save, say, NYC-Heathrow?

Ignoring climb and descent profiles about 15 minutes. You would burn an extra 12,000 #lbs of fuel at a cost of about $6,000 USD.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 19:32

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Found this time/fuel graph. Not really surprising if I'm interpreting it correctly.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/124.htm

A Handed Missus posted:

Oh look, a Cobra owned by some Czech helicopter company.

Nice shot. Very likely to be the same one I saw at an air show couple weeks ago, just without a bigass lens:

And the Hind must be a close relative of this one that was also there:

They do training and helicopter transport services.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 19:37

Kia Soul Enthusias: May 9, 2004; zoom-zoom; Toilet Rascal

Mazz posted:

And to contribute something of value to the tread, I had a flight on a United 737 recently with the entertainment center in the back of every seat with a decent DirecTV package available for like $8. Is that relatively common on the rebuilt 737s?

I rode in a new 737 with the "Sky interior" and they didn't have an entertainment system in first class at least. Edit: Same in a new Alaska 737. They did rent portable TV computer things for a few dollars.

Kia Soul Enthusias fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Sep 15, 2014

# ? Sep 15, 2014 19:48

ctishman: Apr 26, 2005; Oh Giraffe you're havin' a laugh!

joat mon posted:

The last word in the MD/Boeing discussion, it seems.

Edit: wait, that's a 727 Calvin's flying. Nice!

# ? Sep 15, 2014 21:15

Spaced God: Feb 8, 2014; All torment, trouble, wonder and amazement
Inhabits here: some heavenly power guide us
Out of this fearful country!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPedHJNQNUM
:aaa:

# ? Sep 15, 2014 21:31

Naturally Selected: Nov 28, 2007; by Cyrano4747

A Handed Missus posted:

Oh look, a Cobra owned by some Czech helicopter company.

Holy hell, I guess it is hard to paint a shark-mouth that doesn't look absolutely retarded.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 21:46

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; The Mote in God's Eye

ctishman posted:

The last word in the MD/Boeing discussion, it seems.

Edit: wait, that's a 727 Calvin's flying. Nice!

When were 727s phased out? Re-reading Calvin and Hobbes, one thing I noticed is that there is no internet or any sort of wireless devices. I know that's normal for when it was written, I guess I'm surprised how much I notice the technology change from the mid-90s.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 21:47

CovfefeCatCafe: Apr 11, 2006; A fresh attitude
brewed daily!

Spaced God posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPedHJNQNUM

What plane is that, looks to be 'marking' where to drop the load? Looks like some kind of twin ala 410 or a Seminole.

# ? Sep 15, 2014 21:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 21:35

SybilVimes: Oct 29, 2011

Nebakenezzer posted:

When were 727s phased out?

Still flying

# ? Sep 15, 2014 21:56

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

«‹›2239 »