Safety fears over long-haul flights
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
uk.transport only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

uk.transport Profile…
 Up
Safety fears over long-haul flights         


Author: Doug
Date: Sep 4, 2008 22:49

Anyone with a fear of flying, or maybe a fear of polluting and wasting
energy perhaps?

"Airlines are being urged to implement new safety measures for long-
haul aircraft after investigators found that the crash-landing of a
Boeing 777 at Heathrow was probably caused by ice in its fuel system.

The previously unknown problem was revealed in a report into the
accident on 17 January involving a British Airways flight from
Shanghai. The Air Accidents Investigation Branch is urging European
and US regulators to introduce interim measures for all Boeing 777s
powered by Rolls-Royce Trent 800 engines to prevent a similar
incident.

It also wants the aviation industry to ensure that fuel systems can
cope with the potential build-up and sudden release of ice. The
findings could result in long-haul flights being made to fly at lower
altitudes to prevent the build-up of ice crystals inside their fuel
tanks..."

More:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/safety-fears-over-longhaul-flights...
Show full article (1.09Kb)
5 Comments
Re: Safety fears over long-haul flights         


Author: Brimstone
Date: Sep 4, 2008 23:53

Doug wrote:
> Anyone with a fear of flying, or maybe a fear of polluting and wasting
> energy perhaps?
>
Neither. Do you have a point?
no comments
Re: Safety fears over long-haul flights         


Author: Graculus
Date: Sep 5, 2008 00:56

"Doug" riseup.net> wrote in message
news:d54504c5-4261-4fd1-a9a3-a3c9ec661c43@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Anyone with a fear of flying, or maybe a fear of polluting and wasting
> energy perhaps?

Was that a question, a statement, or what? Or just the ramblings of a
madman?

If you are trying to extrapolate from what was actually said in your
referenced article (as you usually do spectacularly incorrectly), then, no,
the 777 crash has not and will not put people off flying. And any link
between a plane crash and some pollution-related argument is completely
bogus.
no comments
Re: Safety fears over long-haul flights         


Author: Derek
Date: Sep 5, 2008 02:03

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 22:49:54 -0700 (PDT), Doug riseup.net>
wrote:

Snip baby-esque pseudo scientific drivel.

I heard the van's coming to your place to collect 35 kilos of carbon
for sequestration opn Monday.

Do us all a favour and "Dry Up" .

It's charged by the weight.

Derek
no comments
Re: Safety fears over long-haul flights         


Author: Mike P
Date: Sep 5, 2008 03:16

"Doug" riseup.net> wrote in message
news:d54504c5-4261-4fd1-a9a3-a3c9ec661c43@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Anyone with a fear of flying, or maybe a fear of polluting and wasting
> energy perhaps?

Fear of flying? Yes, I have that. I'll still fly though as it's convenient
for me. If you're suggesting I should somehow travel the 7000-odd miles to
see my family in another way, please suggest it.

Mike P
no comments
Re: Safety fears over long-haul flights         


Author: NotMe
Date: Sep 5, 2008 16:20

On 5 Sep, 06:49, Doug riseup.net> wrote:
> Anyone with a fear of flying, or maybe a fear of polluting and wasting
> energy perhaps?

Flying is one of the safest methods of travel. You are more likely to
get killed cycling from Catford to Heathrow, than you are flying to
Morocco. Even riding a polluting two stroke motorbike around the
desert is probably more dangerous than flying.
> It also wants the aviation industry to ensure that fuel systems can
> cope with the potential build-up and sudden release of ice. The
> findings could result in long-haul flights being made to fly at lower
> altitudes to prevent the build-up of ice crystals inside their fuel
> tanks..."

You seem happy that aircraft may have to fly at a lower altitude,
where the drag is a lot higher, and so the plane has to burn more fuel
to get to its destination, and thus becomes more polluting. Long haul
flights will have to carry less cargo, e.g. less food, which will mean
more flights into Heathrow and Gatwick.
no comments