Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Sir Tigger KC on 17 February 2017, 09:09:50
-
Coming home from Bangkok on Tuesday I had a window seat on the second leg from Dubai, and flying across Germany where the skies were busy, I noticed that all of the other planes were belching out trails of dirty black smoke. :o
So a couple of questions for the aviationists here.
A) Are there any sort of emissions standards/regulations for aeroplanes?
B) Why do these emissions look like a trail of fluffy white cloud at ground level, yet at 40,000 ft it's a trail of dirty exhaust smoke?
:-\
TIA! :y
-
I always thought it was vapour not smoke.
I have strong views on air travel. We are being constantly berated over pollution from cars, told to recycle this and that, save energy on heating etc blah blah, and yet little is said about huge airctaft burning tons of fuel at 35,000 ft, and in fact air travel is actually encouraged with airport expansion etc.
-
Pretty much everything in a "vapour trail" is just that - water vapour.
Fuel burns hot and pretty efficiently in a turbine engine running at cruise power, much more so than in an internal combustion engine, so the hydrocarbons break down pretty much to carbon dioxide and water with perhaps a trace of carbon monoxide and NOx.
Black smoke implies soot, which is only generated when burning very inefficiently, something that would be avoided on cost grounds and because it would coat the internal surfaces in the engine and cause mechanical problems.
Even a minute amount of water vapour released into the atmosphere at 30,000+ feet will immediately condense and freeze, because the air can't sustain very much humidity at all at the low temperature and pressure found there.
I suspect the colour you saw was probably down to the angle at which sunlight was striking the vapour trail.
-
Pretty much as Kevin says... except .... at high altitude (low pressure) and cold temperatures (-40 odd) water vapour occurs in a "supercooled" state and is basically hanging about doing not a lot, in order to form a water droplet it has to condense onto something, it cannot just form a drop ... (this does occur when water crystallises and forms snow but at very different pressures and temperatures) ....
The exhaust from the engine contains unburned hydrocarbons and soot, emitted at high temperatures, this causes the "local" temperature to rise and the soopercooled droplets can then form water droplets by condensing onto the soot particles, and you get the "vapour trail" you see .. starts about 100 metres behind the aircraft. How long it "lingers" depends on the meteorological conditions .. some last hours, some just a few seconds, but as conditions change the water droplets return to vapour and the trail vanishes.
A military pilot will take a great interest in when this occurs as the trail is a huge give-a-way as to his position, vapour trails being visible from many miles away, even we lowly Herc boys took an interest !!
-
Pretty much as Kevin says... except .... at high altitude (low pressure) and cold temperatures (-40 odd) water vapour occurs in a "supercooled" state and is basically hanging about doing not a lot, in order to form a water droplet it has to condense onto something, it cannot just form a drop .......
Regarding these 'supercooled droplets' I recall watching the Air Crash Investigation series and one of them was about 'supercooled' droplets. The investigators found, in their search for reasons why there had been a couple of near miss 'plunges' and a fatal plunge, that these supercooled droplets were hanging around in the atmosphere in a plane's 'waiting area' as they circled around awaiting clearance to land. Flying around in this area a couple of times was not a problem as they just used the rubber inflators on the front of the wing to disperse the ice but the planes affected had been circling for a while. Unknown to the pilots the supercooled droplets, which had previously had nothing to latch on to, flowed over the wing and settled on the Aileron. The eventual build up of droplets jammed the Aileron causing loss of control.
Every day is a school day, you learn something new.
-
Coming home from Bangkok on Tuesday I had a window seat on the second leg from Dubai, and flying across Germany where the skies were busy, I noticed that all of the other planes were belching out trails of dirty black smoke. :o
So a couple of questions for the aviationists here.
A) Are there any sort of emissions standards/regulations for aeroplanes?
B) Why do these emissions look like a trail of fluffy white cloud at ground level, yet at 40,000 ft it's a trail of dirty exhaust smoke?
:-\
TIA! :y
Absolutely, very tough ones - look at a 737 from a few years ago against a current model and look at all the changes. Winglets to save fuel, much larger vey high bypass turbofans etc
-
As alluded...
A. Yes.
B. All about perspective. The English channel always looks really inviting from the air... Stand in it and the colour is more akin to sewage :D
-
A military pilot will take a great interest in when this occurs as the trail is a huge give-a-way as to his position, vapour trails being visible from many miles away, even we lowly Herc boys took an interest !!
Not something I've ever worried about, unless dumping water ballast, when it used to be customary to aim for the patio outside the club house - until the CFI started labouring the implications of the 500' rule. :-[
-
More of a challenge from further away ;)
-
no tax on their fuel either not even VAT - even trains pay tax on fuel >:(
CO2 dumped at altitude has about double the global warming impact of CO2 at ground level I believe. >:( >:(
-
no tax on their fuel either not even VAT - even trains pay tax on fuel >:(
CO2 dumped at altitude has about double the global warming impact of CO2 at ground level I believe. >:( >:(
That's why you can fly from London to Bangkok for about £400 return then! :y
-
On the days after 9/11, when there were no planes in the sky, people said the skies were actually blue, instead of murky grey.
-
no tax on their fuel either not even VAT - even trains pay tax on fuel >:(
CO2 dumped at altitude has about double the global warming impact of CO2 at ground level I believe. >:( >:(
Stop reading the Daily Mail... you'll give yourself an ulcer. Commercial fuel is cheap because it's bought in vast quantities, duty remains the same. It is then written of as a legitimate expense. Which is nice 8)
-
no tax on their fuel either not even VAT - even trains pay tax on fuel >:(
CO2 dumped at altitude has about double the global warming impact of CO2 at ground level I believe. >:( >:(
Stop reading the Daily Mail... you'll give yourself an ulcer. Commercial fuel is cheap because it's bought in vast quantities, duty remains the same. It is then written of as a legitimate expense. Which is nice 8)
that's just the usual dangleberries ;D.. type "tax on airline fuel" into google ;).
or http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/commentanalysis/ethicaleconomics/taxhavensinthesky.aspx :
"If global aviation emissions were a country, it would be ranked 7th in the list of global carbon emitters, between the UK and Japan. Yet aviation is the only means of transportation that doesn’t pay a penny of tax on the fuel it burns. This is an unfair advantage that airlines have over trains, coaches and cars, making it the fastest growing form of transport while also being the most carbon intensive. "
-
I would question the motives of such a piece :-\ The implication being that airlines contribute nothing...
-
no tax on their fuel either not even VAT - even trains pay tax on fuel >:(
CO2 dumped at altitude has about double the global warming impact of CO2 at ground level I believe. >:( >:(
Stop reading the Daily Mail... you'll give yourself an ulcer. Commercial fuel is cheap because it's bought in vast quantities, duty remains the same. It is then written of as a legitimate expense. Which is nice 8)
that's just the usual dangleberries ;D.. type "tax on airline fuel" into google ;).
or http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/commentanalysis/ethicaleconomics/taxhavensinthesky.aspx :
"If global aviation emissions were a country, it would be ranked 7th in the list of global carbon emitters, between the UK and Japan. Yet aviation is the only means of transportation that doesn’t pay a penny of tax on the fuel it burns. This is an unfair advantage that airlines have over trains, coaches and cars, making it the fastest growing form of transport while also being the most carbon intensive. "
It's a good job that article looks at the whole picture carefully and fairly :-X
-
I thought modern jets used less fuel than average family cars, per passenger?
-
I thought modern jets used less fuel than average family cars, per passenger?
By a very long way they do. IIRC, Concorde used to do about 30 MPG per passenger.
-
I thought modern jets used less fuel than average family cars, per passenger?
Per passenger per mile
The thing about air travel is that a lot of people can travel a long way in a short period of time so the fuel used per journey is significant even though the fuel used per passenger per mile looks good.
-
Coming home from Bangkok on Tuesday I had a window seat on the second leg from Dubai, and flying across Germany where the skies were busy, I noticed that all of the other planes were belching out trails of dirty black smoke. :o
So a couple of questions for the aviationists here.
A) Are there any sort of emissions standards/regulations for aeroplanes?
B) Why do these emissions look like a trail of fluffy white cloud at ground level, yet at 40,000 ft it's a trail of dirty exhaust smoke?
:-\
TIA! :y
Are you sure it wasn't a trick of the light, ie more of the trail showing a shadow?, sometimes with the right height, Sun position, angle etc, this can happen.
-
I would question the motives of such a piece :-\ The implication being that airlines contribute nothing...
classic pivot ::). so do you accept now that commercial aircraft pay no tax at all on their fuel? ???
-
I would question the motives of such a piece :-\ The implication being that airlines contribute nothing...
classic pivot ::). so do you accept now that commercial aircraft pay no tax at all on their fuel? ???
One of the reasons kerosene was picked as jet engine fuel. Other engines don't use it, so a tax free regime was easy to implement. :y :y :y
Of course the tree-huggers got the government to put their flight duty on flying. :(
If you want a good objective website on the latest lies dubious figures supporting the global warming scam then the award winning blog https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com (https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com) takes a lot of beating. Their mission is reporting objective science and facts. The world is going to cool by about 1degC over the next 10 years and will do so for about 40 years (about 2 long sun cycles) where we are approaching a new Maunder Minimum.
Headline reported world warming figures are all based of incomplete earth based temperatures which are then 'adjusted'. The much more accurate satellite ones which cover all of the globe are never used by the tree huggers, as they show virtually no temperature rises (last year was 0.02degC higher than the last peak in 1998) and that would never do for the tax subsidies that the tree-huggers rely on. :(
-
I thought modern jets used less fuel than average family cars, per passenger?
Per passenger per mile
The thing about air travel is that a lot of people can travel a long way in a short period of time so the fuel used per journey is significant even though the fuel used per passenger per mile looks good.
So, lets pretend I was a tree hugging do-gooder.
If I wanted to drive with Mrs TB down to the south of France, along with my holiday buddy Abbo and his missus, who would use their own sports car made of wood... ...would I be kinder to the environment by flying as opposed to driving a 14yr old 3.2l Omega?
Not that I care, as I would always take the car, as everything about dealing with British airports is nothing more than a tedious waste of time, as everything, from carparks, check-in, security, boarding, refreshments is run and staffed by first class morons. Which puts me in a bloody bad mood long before you even have to deal with being squashed and cooped up on a poxy plane for hours, with the little "darlings" behind kicking your seat constantly - and any attempt to punch them is met with distain by the parents who can't control them - and the fat idiot in front trying to recline his seat as far as it will go, so he can put his head on your lap.
Yeah, bloody brilliant start to any holiday.
-
Coming home from Bangkok on Tuesday I had a window seat on the second leg from Dubai, and flying across Germany where the skies were busy, I noticed that all of the other planes were belching out trails of dirty black smoke. :o
So a couple of questions for the aviationists here.
A) Are there any sort of emissions standards/regulations for aeroplanes?
B) Why do these emissions look like a trail of fluffy white cloud at ground level, yet at 40,000 ft it's a trail of dirty exhaust smoke?
:-\
TIA! :y
Are you sure it wasn't a trick of the light, ie more of the trail showing a shadow?, sometimes with the right height, Sun position, angle etc, this can happen.
Don't think so as all the planes I saw whether they were above or below were trailing black smoke. :-\ We overtook a Thompson's plane of some kind and the first sign of this jet was the black smoke along side us. :)
-
In that case it was an optical illusion as the only aircraft Thomson would have over that way would be a Dreamliner, and theirs are all near as damn it new ;)
-
I thought modern jets used less fuel than average family cars, per passenger?
Per passenger per mile
The thing about air travel is that a lot of people can travel a long way in a short period of time so the fuel used per journey is significant even though the fuel used per passenger per mile looks good.
So, lets pretend I was a tree hugging do-gooder.
If I wanted to drive with Mrs TB down to the south of France, along with my holiday buddy Abbo and his missus, who would use their own sports car made of wood... ...would I be kinder to the environment by flying as opposed to driving a 14yr old 3.2l Omega?
That's similar to looking at the safety figures - yes flying appears safer than driving but airlines quote it in terms of deaths per 100 mil miles however people don't live their lives in miles they live it in time eg hours, years. Planes travel about 20 faster than cars so if you spend an hour in a plane you cover 20 times the miles you would in a car.
multiply the deaths per 100 mil miles for planes by 20 to get the actual likelihood of dying on a plane compared to a car, for equal periods of living/travelling time.
-
Don't think so as all the planes I saw whether they were above or below were trailing black smoke. :-\ We overtook a Thompson's plane of some kind and the first sign of this jet was the black smoke along side us. :)
here's a video of the effect https://youtu.be/BZXsyx-xtcY?t=60
do any of these account for it? http://contrailscience.com/contrails-dark-lines-chemtrails/
see here too https://www.metabunk.org/black-exhaust-contrail-or-chemtrail.t5917/
-
Apparently the earth is flat... as demonstrated by great circle flight routes ;D
-
Thanks for the link, "Rods2" and for the calm perspective.I agree that it's Government funding that colours the uttering of the huggers and green brigate, who cook up all sorts of specious "statistics" to prove their fallacious output, in order that government (any Government, any colour) can justify its swingeing taxation levels, especially on motorists. The more guilty they make us feel, the less we complain about their extortion!
Carbon dioxide is NOT the enemy, it's our friend. Let's imagine if we drastically reduced CO2, or - horror upon horrors - eliminated it altogether. That would be the end of life on Earth.
Why? No CO2 = no plantlife, so we die. Eat meat instead of vegetables? Animals eat vegetation: no vegetation = no animals.
Even if CO2 levels were a threat and responsible for global warming - and as you idicated, Rod, the Earth is actually cooling slightly - all forms of transport, our beloved Omegas and everything else put together only account for less that 0.02% of Global CO2.....the rest comes from us - we breathe it out. Plants take it in and return oxygen by way of symbiotic trade-in.
As people are by far the major source of CO2, would the Forum like to suggest people that we could terminate in order to save the Planet? :y 8)
Ron
-
The Boy has a not insubstantial list to be getting on with ;)
-
As people are by far the major source of CO2, would the Forum like to suggest people that we could terminate in order to save the Planet? :y 8)
Ron
'dr' gollum. with extreme predjudice ;D
-
As people are by far the major source of CO2, would the Forum like to suggest people that we could terminate in order to save the Planet? :y 8)
Ron
'dr' gollum. with extreme predjudice ;D
Age before beauty :-*
-
In that case it was an optical illusion as the only aircraft Thomson would have over that way would be a Dreamliner, and theirs are all near as damn it new ;)
Maybe so, but not as fast as an A380 though! :y
-
Or not actually trying ;)
A380 cruise speed is 907 km/h, B787 is 913 km/h...
On the off chance it was one of the B767s out for a walk, they cruise at 851 km/h... But ignoring the winglets on the B75/767, the basic wing design is 40 years old ::)
-
I thought modern jets used less fuel than average family cars, per passenger?
Per passenger per mile
The thing about air travel is that a lot of people can travel a long way in a short period of time so the fuel used per journey is significant even though the fuel used per passenger per mile looks good.
So, lets pretend I was a tree hugging do-gooder.
If I wanted to drive with Mrs TB down to the south of France, along with my holiday buddy Abbo and his missus, who would use their own sports car made of wood... ...would I be kinder to the environment by flying as opposed to driving a 14yr old 3.2l Omega?
Not that I care, as I would always take the car, as everything about dealing with British airports is nothing more than a tedious waste of time, as everything, from carparks, check-in, security, boarding, refreshments is run and staffed by first class morons. Which puts me in a bloody bad mood long before you even have to deal with being squashed and cooped up on a poxy plane for hours, with the little "darlings" behind kicking your seat constantly - and any attempt to punch them is met with distain by the parents who can't control them - and the fat idiot in front trying to recline his seat as far as it will go, so he can put his head on your lap.
Yeah, bloody brilliant start to any holiday.
Avoid the Chunnel like the plague, get a night ferry to France, a full English breakfast to get your early start off splendidly, drive the 700miles in circa 12 hours down to the south of France, have your car to visit wherever you want on the Med, and then cruise back home. If like I (6 times) and TB you have done it, then don't delay, get a life and exceptional holiday by doing so. The Camargue area takes a lot of beating.
-
ignoring the winglets on the B75/767, the basic wing design is 40 years old ::)
winglets were designed 40 years ago, a DC10 flew with winglets a year before the 767's first ever flight.
-
ignoring the winglets on the B75/767, the basic wing design is 40 years old ::)
winglets were designed 40 years ago, a DC10 flew with winglets a year before the 767's first ever flight.
Which part of "ignoring the winglets" wasn't clear?
If you really want to split hairs, you're thinking of the MD11, which too all intents and purposes is a stretched DC10-30.
Thompson have only fitted winglets to their 75/76 fleet in the last five or so years. The Dreamliner has a completely different profile to the 767 and no winglets. If I can be arsed over the next few days, I shall take some pictures just to prove a point...
Anyhow, back to the thread ::)
-
If you really want to split hairs, you're thinking of the MD11, which too all intents and purposes is a stretched DC10-30.
no, it was the DC10, as I said ::) ::)
(http://www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/0/3/4/1742430.jpg)
N68048 Continental Air Lines McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10 - cn 47802 / 101
Airframe Details
Construction Number (MSN) 47802
Line Number 101
Aircraft Type McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10
First Flight 24. Apr 1973
Age 29.0 Years
Production Site Long Beach (LGB)
Airframe Status Scrapped
-
I thought modern jets used less fuel than average family cars, per passenger?
Per passenger per mile
The thing about air travel is that a lot of people can travel a long way in a short period of time so the fuel used per journey is significant even though the fuel used per passenger per mile looks good.
So, lets pretend I was a tree hugging do-gooder.
If I wanted to drive with Mrs TB down to the south of France, along with my holiday buddy Abbo and his missus, who would use their own sports car made of wood... ...would I be kinder to the environment by flying as opposed to driving a 14yr old 3.2l Omega?
Not that I care, as I would always take the car, as everything about dealing with British airports is nothing more than a tedious waste of time, as everything, from carparks, check-in, security, boarding, refreshments is run and staffed by first class morons. Which puts me in a bloody bad mood long before you even have to deal with being squashed and cooped up on a poxy plane for hours, with the little "darlings" behind kicking your seat constantly - and any attempt to punch them is met with distain by the parents who can't control them - and the fat idiot in front trying to recline his seat as far as it will go, so he can put his head on your lap.
Yeah, bloody brilliant start to any holiday.
Exactly. :y
I have a rough policy, If where I'm going is within 1,000km of Calais, then I drive. French budget hotels are good and cheap, break the journey and stop over. Plus, having the car mean you can load up with wine and other stuff :y
I just hate the whole flying process, all designed to make life a misery and to part you from as much cash as possible.
-
I couldn't agree more, Mr. Rog; airports (and especially their over-the-top security) get on my t*ts! We can shorten journey times by flying at speed, yet spoil it all by the length of time they make you hang around before they deign to let you on to the bl**dy thing!
The other annoyances have already been eloquently described by others, so I won't repeat them, but the whole business is such a pain in the arris.....
Ron.
-
Agreed. I love a good road trip and airports are a PITA, especially the massive queues to get through immigration in some places. ::)
It's just that some destinations are a little tricky to drive to. :-\
Thailand for example. By the time you pitch up in Bangkok and have a cup of coffee, it's time to turn around and head for home! ;D
-
OK Migmog, I concede that that is indeed a DC10... Winglets obviously didn't work as expected as Continental didn't bother fitting them to their later DC10 fleet ;D
-
That's similar to looking at the safety figures - yes flying appears safer than driving but airlines quote it in terms of deaths per 100 mil miles however people don't live their lives in miles they live it in time eg hours, years. Planes travel about 20 faster than cars so if you spend an hour in a plane you cover 20 times the miles you would in a car.
Not entirely sure what that has to do with the price of fish, but then I've always struggled with the logic of conspiracists.
So if we live in days/hours/minutes, are you suggesting 4hrs in a car (and forget mileage) is safer statistically than 4hrs in a plane?
I wonder want proportion of flyers were seriously injured or killed in a plane in 2016, compared to car users?
-
Avoid the Chunnel like the plague
Couldn't agree more. All Le Shuttle staff and management are on the cull list. Its enough to put you off France, much like that shithole you end up in that we call Calais.
get a night ferry to France, a full English breakfast to get your early start off splendidly, drive the 700miles in circa 12 hours down to the south of France, have your car to visit wherever you want on the Med, and then cruise back home. If like I (6 times) and TB you have done it, then don't delay, get a life and exceptional holiday by doing so. The Camargue area takes a lot of beating.
Couldn't agree more. And the whole of the French Med coast is lovely. And if you can share the driving so you can get an hour or 2 sleep in, the South of France from the Midlands is doable in a (long) day.
-
That's similar to looking at the safety figures - yes flying appears safer than driving but airlines quote it in terms of deaths per 100 mil miles however people don't live their lives in miles they live it in time eg hours, years. Planes travel about 20 faster than cars so if you spend an hour in a plane you cover 20 times the miles you would in a car.
Not entirely sure what that has to do with the price of fish, but then I've always struggled with the logic of conspiracists.
So if we live in days/hours/minutes, are you suggesting 4hrs in a car (and forget mileage) is safer statistically than 4hrs in a plane?
I wonder want proportion of flyers were seriously injured or killed in a plane in 2016, compared to car users?
I suspect more people died in motorcycle rtcs in England than suffered serious or worse in aircraft incidents...
-
Exactly. :y
I have a rough policy, If where I'm going is within 1,000km of Calais, then I drive. French budget hotels are good and cheap, break the journey and stop over. Plus, having the car mean you can load up with wine and other stuff :y
I just hate the whole flying process, all designed to make life a misery and to part you from as much cash as possible.
I'm off to France in a fortnight's time. Three of us are going, so I'm driving. But if I were going on my own, I wouldn't even consider doing that. It takes less than half a day(including get to, and waiting at Stansted), is easier and cheaper to fly, and then rent a car when I get there.
I've driven to Aix in a day on a couple of occasions, and wouldn't do it again. We're coming back from Mont-de-Marsan in one go, a similar 700mile trip.
But this is in Europe, if you go anywhere else driving simply isn't an option. When I have a destination, I want to use the most efficient, cost effective way of getting there: I've done enough travelling to know that it's always a chore.
I don't use the tunnel, as the small time saving isn't worth paying twice as much as the ferry. Calais is a shithole, but so is Dover. They're ports, places to travel through/past not visit for a nice time.
-
St Malo is nice... Nice port is not :D
Guessing you're flying Spud u like if Stansted :-\
-
St Malo is nice... Nice port is not :D
Guessing you're flying Spud u like if Stansted :-\
Stansted is an airport. I don't go there for the cosmopolitan atmosphere. The only reason I've spent so much time at Gatwick is that I worked there for 7 years.
-
Spudulike is one of the politer things I call Bryanair...
Only flown through Stansted once... can't say that it made a lasting impression :-\
-
Spudulike is one of the politer things I call Bryanair...
Only flown through Stansted once... can't say that it made a lasting impression :-\
That's good, you arrived, mortgaged your soul again for a beer in the departure lounge, and left.
In the same way I intend to arrive at Dover just before 08:00 on 6th March, check in, drive across the quayside and onto the boat.
-
:'(
Spudulike is one of the politer things I call Bryanair...
Only flown through Stansted once... can't say that it made a lasting impression :-\
That's good, you arrived, mortgaged your soul again for a beer in the departure lounge, and left.
In the same way I intend to arrive at Dover just before 08:00 on 6th March, check in, drive across the quayside and onto the boat.
I was fourteen at the time... I would have remembered the beer ;D
Ironically, I should have been on the ferry with my mum and bro rather than escorting my grandfather to another aunts house after my uncle in Guernsey threw him out... sadly it was the last time I saw that uncle as he died six weeks later :'( :'(
Not the best of summers :-\
-
Spudulike is one of the politer things I call Bryanair...
Only flown through Stansted once... can't say that it made a lasting impression :-\
Always worked well for me, cheap and if you play by their rules effective. I think it all depends where you going, a short hop in Europe I don't need anything onboard.
-
Or not actually trying ;)
A380 cruise speed is 907 km/h, B787 is 913 km/h...
On the off chance it was one of the B767s out for a walk, they cruise at 851 km/h... But ignoring the winglets on the B75/767, the basic wing design is 40 years old ::)
New cruise techniques? We always cruised by Mach number. :y
-
Spudulike is one of the politer things I call Bryanair...
Only flown through Stansted once... can't say that it made a lasting impression :-\
Always worked well for me, cheap and if you play by their rules effective. I think it all depends where you going, a short hop in Europe I don't need anything onboard.
I will never fly with them. Ever. This is partly down to the way they operate and partly down to the way they are(n't) regulated. Equally I don't intend to fly with Norwegian until their fleet is on the UK registry.
-
Spudulike is one of the politer things I call Bryanair...
Only flown through Stansted once... can't say that it made a lasting impression :-\
Always worked well for me, cheap and if you play by their rules effective. I think it all depends where you going, a short hop in Europe I don't need anything onboard.
I will never fly with them. Ever. This is partly down to the way they operate and partly down to the way they are(n't) regulated. Equally I don't intend to fly with Norwegian until their fleet is on the UK registry.
I guess they will be ok for a few years until the fleet starts to age?
-
Have flown with most airlines over the last 45 years or so never bothered about who I go with been cheap & been expensive, still here and enjoyed my travels , my attitude is if your time is up then that's that whether you've paid 30 quid or 3,000 quid for your seat. Love flying & if I had my time again & didn't mess about so much in my youth would have loved to have been a pilot.
-
It isn't the fleet age that concerns me...
But agree with Tilbo. Would have jumped at the chance, but was told very early on that my eyesight was nowhere near good enough, so never bothered :-\ Thirty something years later and alot of pilots wear glasses/contacts...
Time and money permitting it would be nice to at least obtain my PPL :)
-
New cruise techniques? We always cruised by Mach number. :y
Not surprisingly, as that's the parameter that the wing cares about. :y
-
.. I've always struggled with the logic of conspiracists.
I'm not sure why you are calling me a conspiracist, or what the conspiracy you're referring to is. perhaps you can explain >:(
So if we live in days/hours/minutes, are you suggesting 4hrs in a car (and forget mileage) is safer statistically than 4hrs in a plane?
i didn't say that i said the using deaths per mile is a misleading figure. deaths per billion passenger miles for
flying is 0.07,
urban rail 0.24,
cars 7.28
but planes fly approx 20 times the speed of cars or urban rail so cover 20 times the mileage in 4 hours. So, roughly, the comparable safety figures for 4 hours in each is
rail 0.43
flying 1.4
car 7.28
despite what per miles figures say spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car).
if you are looking at CO2 output you should also look at it per hour as if you go by plane and get there a lot faster you will still be outputting CO2 and other global warming gasses in the time you have saved, either by hiring a car or farting in your hotel bath.
-
Was using Top Trumps numbers to suit the purility of that particular argument...
For the purists...
A388 0.85.
B744 0.855
B788 0.85
B75/76 0.80
B727 0.92 8) have seen one of these do LGW-AGP-LGW in well under 4 hours, much further and it would have needed a fuel stop ;D
-
Just to slip into the budget airline debate, I flew with Germanwings to Cologne recently and they were pretty good for the price
-
Yep, 0.85 is the current "sweet spot".
-
i didn't say that i said the using deaths per mile is a misleading figure. deaths per billion passenger miles for
flying is 0.07,
urban rail 0.24,
cars 7.28
but planes fly approx 20 times the speed of cars or urban rail so cover 20 times the mileage in 4 hours. So, roughly, the comparable safety figures for 4 hours in each is
rail 0.43
flying 1.4
car 7.28
despite what per miles figures say spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car).
Hang on a sec, you're not making sense.
So I want to get to the Cote d'Azur, approx. 850 miles from my house, and somebody worried about safety. Why are planes suddenly 20times more dangerous, because they are 20 times faster. The stats are well known and verifiable, without multiplying by an arbitrary figure.
And that's what I mean about conspiracists ;)
Nick W - having done said Cote d'Azur by both car and plane, there is not much in it timewise (about an hour), both take a long day, due to all the dicking around at each end. IME anyway.
-
i didn't say that i said the using deaths per mile is a misleading figure. deaths per billion passenger miles for
flying is 0.07,
urban rail 0.24,
cars 7.28
but planes fly approx 20 times the speed of cars or urban rail so cover 20 times the mileage in 4 hours. So, roughly, the comparable safety figures for 4 hours in each is
rail 0.43
flying 1.4
car 7.28
despite what per miles figures say spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car).
Hang on a sec, you're not making sense.
So I want to get to the Cote d'Azur, approx. 850 miles from my house, and somebody worried about safety. Why are planes suddenly 20times more dangerous, because they are 20 times faster. The stats are well known and verifiable, without multiplying by an arbitrary figure.
And that's what I mean about conspiracists ;)
I think you just need to learn to read...
-
I've flown with premium and budget, and not noticed the difference (price aside). I pick whats most convenient/fastest.
-
I think you just need to learn to read...
I think you're right MM, as you're not making any sense to me. I've even scribbed it on a sheet of paper, using your figures, and still can't work out why it immediate becomes 20 times more dangerous.
Not that I'm fussed, as I'd drive anyway, as stated. And we still agree that's the most dangerous.
-
I think you just need to learn to read...
I think you're right MM, as you're not making any sense to me. I've even scribbed it on a sheet of paper, using your figures, and still can't work out why it immediate becomes 20 times more dangerous.
its not 20 times its approx 3 times more dangerous per hour than a train and still a lot safer per hour than a car. I do believe this is what I said ::)
here's some practice reading
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
I don't know how I can explain it any better than i did
-
I think you just need to learn to read...
I think you're right MM, as you're not making any sense to me. I've even scribbed it on a sheet of paper, using your figures, and still can't work out why it immediate becomes 20 times more dangerous.
its not 20 times its approx 3 times more dangerous per hour than a train and still a lot safer per hour than a car. I do believe this is what I said ::)
here's some practice reading
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
I don't know how I can explain it any better than i did
Yes but in 4 hours on a train you will have got to the midlands, on a plane I will be Moscow.....
If I get a train to Moscow (several days?) I suspect I am exposed to more risk?
-
The way this thread has gone demonstrates exactly why statistics has such a bad name in some circles.
There is a simple reason why fatalities are measured "per passenger mile" and not "per minute" or hour or whatever, and that is because the distance (mile) is a fixed measure for all transport types, and "per passenger" allows differentiation between a small aircraft and a large one, and allows trains, cars, coaches etc to be included as well.
It actually allows you to even compare the risk of cycling from london to moscow - will take a long time and one "body", but a fixed distance - with a car, train, plane, etc with a KNOWN degree of accuracy .. faffing about trying to claim that time makes difference is clearly stupid, as the time factor may involve sitting in a terminal waiting for a connection (plane or train) or sitting at traffic lights (car) where the "risks" have nothing to do with the type of transport involved.
So, lets stop comparing apples to oranges, and stick with accurate, known methods that we all can understand.
-
I think you just need to learn to read...
I think you're right MM, as you're not making any sense to me. I've even scribbed it on a sheet of paper, using your figures, and still can't work out why it immediate becomes 20 times more dangerous.
its not 20 times its approx 3 times more dangerous per hour than a train and still a lot safer per hour than a car. I do believe this is what I said ::)
here's some practice reading
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
I don't know how I can explain it any better than i did
And as Entwood wrote, you're saying that like it makes a BIG difference. But the baseline, the actual numbers, are very small. So it's (possibly, if the statistics are calculated in a meaningful way) 3 times an insignificant number. Which makes bugger all difference to the actual risk - the important part.
Consider this:
1) you have a 2 in 10 chance of dieing horribly if you get in a car, and a 6 in 10 chance if you get in an aeroplane.
2) You have a 4 in 20,000 chance in a car, and a 12 in 20,000 in an aeroplane.
Both are three times worse, but
1) is risky to start with, and three times worse is terrible odds.
2) is so insignificant to start with, that three times worse is still irrelevant. Making a decision is stupid based on 'three times' worse would be stupid.
-
I've flown with premium and budget, and not noticed the difference (price aside). I pick whats most convenient/fastest.
Yep, there is no such thing as a budget airline any more. They have all reached the lowest common denominator IME.
-
Or as we used to say about our 3% annual payrises... 3% of opps all, is still opps all ::)
-
I think you just need to learn to read...
I think you're right MM, as you're not making any sense to me. I've even scribbed it on a sheet of paper, using your figures, and still can't work out why it immediate becomes 20 times more dangerous.
its not 20 times its approx 3 times more dangerous per hour than a train and still a lot safer per hour than a car. I do believe this is what I said ::)
here's some practice reading
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
"spending 4 hours on a plane is 3 times more dangerous than 4 hours in a train (but both a lot safer than in a car)"
I don't know how I can explain it any better than i did
And as Entwood wrote, you're saying that like it makes a BIG difference. But the baseline, the actual numbers, are very small. So it's (possibly, if the statistics are calculated in a meaningful way) 3 times an insignificant number. Which makes bugger all difference to the actual risk - the important part.
Consider this:
1) you have a 2 in 10 chance of dieing horribly if you get in a car, and a 6 in 10 chance if you get in an aeroplane.
2) You have a 4 in 20,000 chance in a car, and a 12 in 20,000 in an aeroplane.
Both are three times worse, but
1) is risky to start with, and three times worse is terrible odds.
2) is so insignificant to start with, that three times worse is still irrelevant. Making a decision is stupid based on 'three times' worse would be stupid.
Well . . . . . . .
I don't think that I'm ever going to fly, drive, take a ferry, train, bus, hitchhike, cycle, motorcycle, paraglide, skydive, scooter, rollerskate, rollerblade, ice skate, rollerskate, teleport (!), sail, surf, . . . . . again
In fact I don't think I'm ever going to walk outside again, I might get hit by a bus, or struck by lightening, or swallowed by a sinkhole, or abducted by aliens . . . . . .
-
I would move to darkest Wales Rog :y
Certain Migmog will advise you when it's time to move :D