Posted on 08/02/2005 1:28:25 PM PDT by mitchbert
Breaking News from CFRB 1010AM News Radio - Toronto
Airliner on fire on the ground at Toronto Pearson International Airport (YYZ). Unclear as to cause. Announcers asking for updates from motorists in the region on HWY 401. Report says great deal of smoke. I have to go into a meeting shortly but I'll listen for updates as long as I can.
"Lucky guy. He even got his luggage back."
***
Great pics, Selkie...thanks for posting.
Saw an interview with one woman who said her bag was missing and probably destroyed. Then she said, "but I'm still here."
You can replace whatever was in your luggage. You, however, are irreplaceable.
Turns out the crew did a good job of getting everyone out and to safety. And I suppose passengers should be credited for having the sense to listen to instructions, get out of that plane as fast as they could and run like hell away from it.
But for me, the biggest praise and thanks are reserved for the Lord.
Lol you have a great writing skill.
I think, IIRC, there is also noise abatement on takeoff there which I have heard pilots hate.
The problem in Newport is you have an airport that has been there for a long time (not sure how long) and you have the most spectacular beach & bay living only surpassed by Laguna Beach IMHO. A conundrum to say the least.
Yes, and the rhythm at the beginning of the song is based on the morse code for YYZ as sent on the airport transponder - I believe one of the boys in Rush was into aviation at the time they wrote that song. And of course it's their home town, and also my screen name.
...I would have been running like hell both because of the fire/potential for explosion, as well as the fact that with all of the lightning coming down, getting as much distance as possible between me and a big hunk of metal would have been one of my first priorities.
***
Actually in those emergency demos done before the flight takes off, you are instructed in an emergency to get out and move away from the plane quickly. It's just that, in a situation like this, the tendency would be to forget all the safety instructions and just panic. You also get a few knuckleheads who have to question everything (why do I have to get on that slide? I can't run...I have an old football injury? Whine, whine, whine.) I suppose the crew kept everyone calm, instructed the passengers on what to do, and the passengers complied. That had a lot to do with why we had no loss of life and only minor to moderate, but recoverable injuries here.
You also pointed out the rescue people on the ground. Yes indeed...kudos to them too. They responded quickly and did their jobs efficiently.
Some posters aren't worth replying too, You are 1000% correct and have a great time coaching! You were trying to address one of the above.
Not that it's very comforting, but that wing "motion" is what prevented the plane from shaking into a million pieces.
Thanks for the explanation. I had thought the high-frequency wing shaking was making the Airbus's cabin shake/shudder so disturbingly, but now I know I was wrong.
Further, the transcontinental glide path is directly over my office. Daily I watch Lufthansa, Air France and KLM flights come in. When I saw the Lufthansa flight today (around 3pm) I remarked to a coworker that storm conditions must be fairly bad around the airport as they were stepping down the approach altitudes really early and the planes were coming over our location unusually low.
No way the pilots didn't know there were weather issues. No way.
If this crew busted "minimums" just to try and see that runway, they should be FIRED IMMEDIATELY! They must have known about the weather AND the wind shear warnings and yet opted to continue the approach. Absolutely shameful!
So, did everyone get their luggage?
> Maybe we should change the flight path to go over your house...
Nice try. Wrong analogy.
Look, let's get one thing straight: if I want it quiet, I'll buy where it's quiet, NOT under an approach or departure path serving a major airport. If I want THAT house, and THAT house IS under a flight path, I will either take a pass on THAT house, or LIVE IN PEACE with the occasional engine noise accepting of the fact that it is part of the price I am paying to have THAT house. This is how normal, well-adjusted people behave.
That ISN'T what has been happening with John Wayne airport in Newport Beach.
The airport did not, at any time, alter their flight paths to pass over more Newport Beach rooftops, but, in a questionable move, more NB rooftops have, over the years, been built right underneath the pre-existing flight paths as NB steadily marched northward, over the hills toward the airport. In a series of even MORE questionable moves, people paid lots of money to live under those expensive NB rooftops right underneath those pre-existing flight paths. Then, in a move that can only be explained by clinical psychology, the people who paid the money to live under those expensive NB rooftops under those pre-existing flight paths began to complain about the situation that THEY PUT THEMSELVES INTO.
They did this to THEMSELVES; THEY are the ones responsible for their situation, NOT the airport, or the airlines or the pilots, or any other third party. THE HOMEOWNERS did this to themselves.
People who want a quiet, undisturbed existence should NOT buy homes under (or near) airport approach and departure paths. Ya THINK?? I don't care what they paid for their homes, if they're right underneath the departure path of a major airport runway, they ought well have know that they were in for some racket, and they ought well have done some serious introspection as to how they would live with the noise BEFORE THEY BOUGHT THE HOUSE. But to go ahead and close escrow and then complain about the din later is borderline insanity; like buying a house on a flood plain then being apoplectic when the basement fills up with water in March.
Sorry. Life's rough. They can live with it or move but, either way they need to SHUT UP.
Not if I can help it. ;-)
Ya know, John Wayne didn't start out as a major airport, serving 10 million passengers a year. It was general aviation. Quieter. So to be fair, maybe John Wayne should have remained general aviation. YA THINK?
Go right ahead,
I write because I enjoy writing and presenting my ideas. I never knew people actually read what I write. :)
You're right about a SAM. Something that has a powerful search and tracking radar would be detected like a thumb you just hit with a hammer. Furthermore, where are the pieces of this SAM? Most of them are BIG. How did it get there to shoot? This is like saying that we'll secretly bring in an aircraft carrier into the SanFran harbor. It's even less likely than the MANPADS theory. It takes time to set up, numerous people to operate, it's big with a huge radar signature....... The likelihood of a radar SAM? Ahhhhh-none. The conspiracies are based on MANPADS but even this is "highly" unlikely, I think. I'm no expert, nor do I claim to be, but with my limited knowledge of weapon systems I can certainly discount a MANPADS or other SAMs as the reason for this crash.
Red6
>> ...maybe John Wayne should have remained general aviation.
Well, that's certainly an intriguing hypothetical. I see two central questions: "What alternate facility would have taken up the passenger load," and "Would opening or expanding a different facility have allowed SNA to remain GA forever, or only delayed an inevitable change?"
I'm not aware of many facilities that might have been seen as viable options, at the time. LAX was booming. There was pressure for more capacity more convenient to OC. The USMCAS in El Toro wasn't available to be converted to civilian use, nor were the military facilities in Tustin. I suppose Ontario might have been a consideration, but it's as out-of-the-way as LAX for most OC residents, if not more so, and I don't know whether it was already a commercial facility at that time or not. Arguably, looking at it now, shifting the focus to that facility might have been a miracle of foresight that would have allowed SNA to remain a GA facility while providing for the growing needs of communities in OC, Riverside AND SB all at the same time.
Had that been done, though, one must wonder how long it would have been before the growth began to tax the limits of the Ontario facilities bringing renewed pressure to open SNA to commercial traffic. Putting the focus on Ontario first might only have brought SNA to this same place by a different route as South County growth eventually forced the issue.
It isn't as if I think nobody had a right to complain about the airport, but maybe the City of Newport Beach and it's residents should have thought more about how growth would eventually impact the airport and determined to leave a bigger buffer around it; maybe setting aside some big parks or community open spaces with hiking and bike trails to the south. As it is, I think the residents who were over on the airport side of the hills at the time SNA opened to commercial traffic DID have a legitimate beef -- I lived next to the GA facility in Concord and the biggest things in there regularly were a handful of twin turbo-prop commuter craft and small private business jets so, yeah, I could see how I'd feel about the advent of dozens of 727's. I'd have probably been at City Council meetings opposing the opening. If it happened anyway, though, I would have simply moved somewhere else. I can't feature living for years in bitterness over something like that.
The people that leave me shaking my head, and the "snot-nosed boys and girls" to which I originally referred, are the ones who moved in AFTER SNA went commercial and still complain.
FYI
4 August 2005
PARIS ARRESTS
TWO men, one posing as a pilot, were held at Charles de Gaulle airport an hour before the doomed plane took off, it was revealed.
One of them - said to have a "Middle Eastern appearance" - asked about flights at an Air France desk dressed as one of its staff and carrying a fake airport identity badge.
His accomplice tried to drive him away but the pair, aged 35-40, were arrested.
Detectives yesterday searched the men's flat in Paris while they remained in custody.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15815680&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=paris-arrests--name_page.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.