(OT) Flying with unlocked backage

Thomas Gardner · Dec 21, 2002

Peter Lindsey said:
Back to the topic... I have had stuff stolen from my own check-in
bags in the pasts. The airlines take no responsibility
whatsoever. Maximum claims are of the order of $2000 per bag if
the luggage is lost. Lesson here is lock them and carry-on as much
as you can.

UPS is a good option unless flying internationally, then it becomes
prohibitively expensive.

I don't see why it's so hard for people to adjust to these changes. Me, I adjusted from day one. Load toothpaste, toothbrush and clean clothing. And if it's expensive, leave it at home. If it's a weapon, leave it at home.

It really isn't that hard.

And if you need it, buy it when you get there and if it's important, they'll understand.

Life's easy if you let it.

povimage · Dec 21, 2002

Thomas Gardner said:
Keith Krebs said:

Funny, as a "Right Wing Conservative" you seem to be arguing
against the very principles of that conservatism:

Click to expand...

I am arguing for the priciples of conservatism. I'm arguing
against stupid, poorly thought out rhetoric that reeks of
selfcentered idealism that isn't founded in reality of the time and
moment.

As am I.

But YOU are the one that says "post 9/11" reality IS different and "Ben" could not have foreseen this.. Not I...

To argue that ethics and rights are somehow based in being able to foresee a future situation is simply wrong. It turns Ethics into situational ethics, i.e. the ethics of Enron.

Ethics are meant to be a firm structure of principle that you build from, not something bent to the reality of today.. To believe you need to foresee a situation to set your basic ethics turns the schema on its head. A simple example: I don't have to worry about whether I should lie to a close friend about how a dress looks on her, if my ethics say lying is wrong.. But, once I start baancing her potential upset against my ethics, we are likely to have trouble.

If you believe that in your heart Tom, and I think you do, then you must see that it doesn't matter whether Ben could foresee this or not. What matters is those Rights written down in our Constitution.

Thomas Gardner said:
Thomas Gardner said:

Sorry, you may HAVE been a "flaming right wing conservative,"
given your current posts you are simply a scared member of what
Nietzsche would have called the vast "lump." Please feel free to
join the sheep.

Click to expand...

Oh, now there's a worn out phrase. What you're really saying is
you're either with me or against me. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yada,
yada, yada.

That's not what I'm saying..

I'm saying that many people are just too scared today to question the accepted government line.

They are following the herd, that doens't make them against me..

I'll leave the "us and them," "with or aginst us" positions to **** Cheney and Co., they seem to have trademarked them..

Thomas Gardner said:
Thomas Gardner said:

Fortunately, the Founding Fathers foresaw times of trouble.
Fortunately the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote or a
Constitutional Convention to Amend it.

Click to expand...

Unless your Diane Feinstine who thinks the Constitution belongs to
her.

There are people who are wrong on all sides and who look at the Constitution as pliable to their own interests.. Even the ACLU no longer simply takes strong Constitutional stands, but in the regime of Nadine Strossen has move to support particular ideological positions (pro-abortion rights as against anti-abortion protesters) I'm pro-choice personally, but find their move lacking in loyalty to the tenets of the organization.

Thomas Gardner · Dec 21, 2002

Rune Moberg said:
Thomas Gardner said:

Let's see, nope, not a Mexican in the bunch. Nope, no Christian's.
Nope, nobody from China that's a Buddist. Nope, no left wing
Canadian's. Gee, so far, they've all been Muslim and the facts ARE
on the table.

Click to expand...

Falun Gong in China are probably dangerous terrorists. There's also
movements in Japan that aren't muslim who've conducted some
atrocities a couple of times (I seem to recall a chemical based
attack in one of Japan's subway stations?).

Let's see, we're talking about international terrorists that have it in for Christians, Jews and US citizens, not domestic terrorists that have mental problems in Japan. You like running with the ball, don't you.

Keep pretending.

Rune Moberg · Dec 21, 2002

Thomas Gardner said:
So now you're the expert. Leave the decisions up to the experts.

The "experts" are now putting in measures to calm the general public, not to actually improve security. Unfortunately this raises serious issues and complications for everyone who travels by air.

Thomas Gardner said:
Thomas Gardner said:

Would you care to name a couple of those attacks that thanks to the
increase in security measures after 9/11 was thwarted?

Click to expand...

Well, gee, since I'm not a terrorist, no I can't do that. So I

I don't think a terrorist would be able to answer that question. I'd expect the security guys at the airport would know how many culprits they've caught and how many plots they've uncovered.

Security on many international airports was quite adequate prior to 9/11. Now it's getting out of hand, and I totally fail to see the benefits.

Thomas Gardner said:
Thomas Gardner said:

Even prior to 9/11, right? In that case: The security measures for
this kind of problem was adequate prior to 9/11, or?

Click to expand...

Well, it seems that these homicidal terrorists are constantly
cooking up new ways to kill people so the converse is, new security
to twart these button heads will have to be made up. Both to
protect people from terrorists and ignorants that don't think
security is necessary because it's a bother to the holes in their
socks.

So the security guys now resort to guesswork and paranoia?

Gee I feel so much more secure now. Thanks Thomas.

Thomas Gardner said:
Thomas Gardner said:

I strongly question how many of those knives were meant to hijack a
plane or kill someone inside the security zone in an airport.

Click to expand...

There's the child's argument again. Let's see, ten thousand knives
and ten of them were ment to hijack a plane. It's the reality of
the fact that you're ignoring.

Which implies that ten people carrying those knives (I'm assuming a knife per terrorist) are now behind lock and key. When were they caught Thomas? And where?

The incidents I recall (post-9/11) have been rather few. And atleast one of them was a person that was caught inside the airplane, trying to light what looked like a fuse stuck in his sneakers... Well beyond all the metal detectors and random gate checks.

Thomas Gardner said:
Thomas Gardner said:

Are you afraid of box cutters?

Click to expand...

I'm not, but if is was against the neck of my wife I would be. Gee
honey, don't worry, the guy on dpreview isn't afraid of box cutters
and you shouldn't either. Ignore the bad terrorist honey, he'll go
away when we give them what they want. Boy are you living in a
dream.

So in your opinion, someone carrying box cutters are likely terrorist suspects, and should be put behind bars as soon as they attempt to bring box cutters past the security checkpoint?

I strongly suspect that the box cutter is confiscated, yes, but the person carrying it is allowed to board the plane anyway.

As a weapon I'm sure a trained terrorist could cause as much damage using the plastic knife accompanying the onboard meal. And someone mentioned ceramic knives which no doubt poses a bigger threat than any box cutter or scissor, but will easily fool most metal detectors.

Thomas Gardner said:
Thomas Gardner said:

And if these weapons are so dangerous, why aren't more people being
arrested? AFAICT people carrying these items are then let aboard
their scheduled flights anyway.

Click to expand...

I don't know what AFAICT means.

As far as I can tell.

Thomas Gardner said:
Thomas Gardner said:

Terrorists these days tend to be able to plan their attack months
in advance.

Click to expand...

What does that have to do with Chef's knives. No knives on a
plane. Ship them or lose them but they don't come on the plane.

It means that the terrorists are well prepared, will figure out ways of getting needed weaponry aboard, and will do pretty much what they please. Next thing you know we'll all be submitted to body cavity searches prior to boarding our flights. There's no end to this.

Thomas Gardner said:
Yeah, that's it, we're all a bunch of "One Punch Jonny's". One
punch and everybody on the plane is knocked out and all the guys on

An aircraft isn't easy to move around in.

There's a reason why the last flight on 9/11 wasn't saved (but merely crashed in a remote location), and that's because space aboard is limited, and the terrorists stayed in control long enough despite being opposed.

Today the situation is different, because the passengers would oppose the terrorists sooner, and it'd take more terrorists with proper weaponry to keep everyone at bay. A box cutter against someone's neck wouldn't ...cut it.

And again, this assumes that it would be possible for terrorists to gain access to the cockpit. I suspect it takes powerful tools to break down the barred door within, say, 30 minutes. (tools that would hopefully raise some questions at the good old metal detector -- but who knows, maybe crowbars are allowed in the carry-on luggage?)

If you're worried that someone will target your wife's throat using a box cutter, then the likelyhood of this happening has always been bigger outside the airport terminal. Both now and prior to 9/11...

Thomas Gardner said:
At this point, I'm not going to answer anymore of your comments
because it's painfully obvious that you're not connected with a
mature reality.

Ah, yet another personal attack.

How ...mature of you.

--
Rune, http://runesbike.com/

povimage · Dec 21, 2002

DavidP said:
You seem to like to pick on Bush.

And when the Clinton Administration wnated to loosen controls on intercepting e-mail or internet traffic I picke on them..

It's not about any particular Administration.

If we allow the Executive branch to do so,they will take the most expedient and easiest route to deal with problems -- whether or not that route trammels our rights is incidental to them.

DavidP #28649 said:
However, do you really think that a Democrat will undo all this
stuff that's been implemented if Bush loses the election?

No, I think it's an issue that comes down to individual politicians. I'm actually a Republican, as is John McCain, as was Pat Buchanan.

In the case of the current Bush Admin, they've been co-opted by a bunch of neo-conservative hawks who believe in an Imperial America and Pax Americana..

They just don't realize how much hatred such arrogance engenders around the globe..

Their behavior is un-American.. America has always stood against the imperial powers... Except today..

DavidP #28649 said:
Unfortunately, the President will never be a true conservative.
The only way to prevent what we've seen over the last 100 years in
this country (the continued socialization of it) is to elect
conservative (in action, not just in name) to Congress. The
Executive is powerless is the Congress wants to assert its
Constitutional powers.

I never thought W or HW were core conservatives..

I'm a core conservative a libertarian conservative in fact, 1/2 of the the alliance that elected Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, the religious ideologues are in control of the agenda... and that means the Constitution is an impediment to them..

Maybe. like Lyn Nofziger, Reagain's political adviser, they will learn that it protects them just as well as it protects thos they refer to as "them."

It took Lyn's arrest and subsequent vindication in part b/c of ACLU amicus briefs, for him to understand that... What it might take some of the neo-conservatives, I hate to even posit..

Thomas Gardner · Dec 21, 2002

Keith Krebs said:
But YOU are the one that says "post 9/11" reality IS different and
"Ben" could not have foreseen this.. Not I...

No he couldn't have seen this.

povimage said:
To argue that ethics and rights are somehow based in being able to
foresee a future situation is simply wrong. It turns Ethics into
situational ethics, i.e. the ethics of Enron.

No, I'm saying the Constitution and the thinking of the "Bill of Rights" was based upon what was happening at the time and moment and the stuff of today was unforseeable.

Whaaaat! Now were off of the slime of Enron

Please, I have to go to work

povimage said:
If you believe that in your heart Tom, and I think you do, then you
must see that it doesn't matter whether Ben could foresee this or
not. What matters is those Rights written down in our Constitution.

As to whether or not I see what the Democrats are doing today, I do. And yes it bothers me. But this is not the forum to fully flesh out my valid concerns and what I think needs to be done. We'll just say, I understand the purpose of the second amendment and why it's supported by the first and fourth amendments. And yes I'm bothered. But I'm not bothered by the nonsense of security and flying. That's a diversion from the truth.

povimage said:
I'm saying that many people are just too scared today to question
the accepted government line.

I live in a liberal strong hold being South of San Francisco. There's not a conservative in power at the Federal level with in sixty miles and the nearest conservative is Pombo's district and they won't talk to me because I'm not in their district.

povimage said:
I'm pro-choice personally, but find their move lacking in loyalty
to the tenets of the organization.

I find partial birth to be nothing more than unfeeling murder!

Thomas Gardner · Dec 21, 2002

Rune Moberg said:
An aircraft isn't easy to move around in.

Neither is a bar

Rune Moberg said:
There's a reason why the last flight on 9/11 wasn't saved (but
merely crashed in a remote location), and that's because space
aboard is limited, and the terrorists stayed in control long enough
despite being opposed.

That or after the pilots were taken out, nobody else knew how to fly the plane. Oh, let's see, pull back on the steering wheel. Crash!!!!!!

Rune Moberg said:
Rune Moberg said:

At this point, I'm not going to answer anymore of your comments
because it's painfully obvious that you're not connected with a
mature reality.

Click to expand...

Ah, yet another personal attack.

How ...mature of you.

Yeah, that must be it. You the brains, I'm the brawn.

The comment is appropriate and your posts above show that you're not connected with reality. No attack, just a statement of fact based upon your postings.

It does take maturity to recognize the truth.

Let's see you run with my above.

Rune Moberg said:
--
Rune, http://runesbike.com/

povimage · Dec 21, 2002

DavidP said:
If it were only THIS administration doing this, it wouldn't be so bad.

Agreed 100%!!

DavidP #28649 said:
How many gun control laws have we had passed "for the children",
for example?

Agreed, and amazingly, "conservatives" attack that. As I have, but when it comes to violations of the 4th or 5th Amendment instead, that's OK..

Persoanlly, I try my best to stand by the Constitution and all its Amendments..

DavidP #28649 said:
It appears that it's a requirement for getting into the Congress or
Presidency that you know NOTHING of the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Please, how many Congresspeople vote for laws that they KNOW are unconstitutional, knowing the courts will overturn them, just so they can blame the courts..?

It seems they like to abdicate their responsibility to support and uphold the Constitution when it might cost them some votes.. Much easier to vote against flag-burning and have a law overturned than to stand for what is right and explain to the public the basic principles involved..

You can't sell that in a 5 second sound bite.. But someone else can call you a "lover of flag-burning" real quickly...

If people make decisions on sound bites they get represented by people like that.

Which is why my posts are RARELY short. I would rather be comprehensive and succinct than trade aphorisms.

Keith

"Just some guy," and founder of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/

"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together guys"

{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }

Peter Lindsey50614 · Dec 21, 2002

Thomas Gardner said:
I don't see why it's so hard for people to adjust to these changes.
Me, I adjusted from day one. Load toothpaste, toothbrush and clean
clothing. And if it's expensive, leave it at home. If it's a
weapon, leave it at home.

It really isn't that hard.

And if you need it, buy it when you get there and if it's
important, they'll understand.

It's still a pain when even a couple of suits can put you over the airline's maximum responsibility amount.

I have to travel frequently on business, I take my laptop bag, camera bag and a small waist-bag carry-on. There is no room to carry anything else so I have to check-in. That includes all my battery-chargers, tripod, suits +shirts etc which on a long trip can amount to quite a bit. My suitcase regularly tips the $2000 mark. There is no way on this earth that I will ship in unlocked unless those who handle it are prepared to take full responsibility for the contents. I even had a $300 shirt stolen at a hotel more recently. That was a similar situation, I'm supposed to leave valuables of the front desk... does that mean I'm not allowed to own anything valuable that's too big to leave at the front? Are you saying that I'm at fault here for owning and expensive shirt? Of course I couldn't prove the shirts' existence once it had been stolen.

I will say that travelling through the US, although inconvenient, is a reassuring reminder of the US government's attitude to passenger's safety. It is worrying, however, that I as a 'foreigner' may be detained for no reason upon the whim of some Fed. It is of special concerns to photographers, who are often the target of misguided anti-terrorist enthusiasm.

What's more worrying is that it would be fairly trivial for a bunch of terrorists to carry ceramic knives, the sort of which are readily available at many hardware stores.

In response to your comment on searching all Muslims.. (which is pretty much the case already.) How would you feel if suddenly it was your race/religion/hair-colour who were under scrutiny, and you couldn't travel anywhere without being subject to humiliating questioning, searches, and the subsequent missed-flights and delays?

I notice you didn't comment on the Skylarov incident further. Have you thought of something you might have done to break someone elses laws? Better be careful where you travel in future should they know and be waiting to lock you up ;-)

Rune Moberg · Dec 21, 2002

Thomas Gardner said:
That or after the pilots were taken out, nobody else knew how to
fly the plane. Oh, let's see, pull back on the steering wheel.
Crash!!!!!!

Pulling back the stick would cause a crash?

Explain.

--
Rune, http://runesbike.com/

povimage · Dec 21, 2002

DavidP said:
The best line I've heard about the gov't running security is this:

"People expect that they'll have the equivealent of G-Men running
the show. What they need to realize is that they're gonna get the
equivalent of Postal Employees". ROFL. How true.

Heck, even the G-Men didn't do so good pre-9/11...

Which is why I don't simply trust Government employees to safeguard my luggage, my information, or my rights.

Keith

"Just some guy," and founder of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/

"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together guys"

{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }

povimage · Dec 21, 2002

Rune Moberg said:
Thomas Gardner said:

That or after the pilots were taken out, nobody else knew how to
fly the plane. Oh, let's see, pull back on the steering wheel.
Crash!!!!!!

Click to expand...

Pulling back the stick would cause a crash?

Increase the angle of attack too much and the plane stalls, entering an uncontrolled descent... Basically no lift, as turbulence burbles over the ewings..

WHAM!

Keith

"Just some guy," and founder of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/

"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together guys"

{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }

povimage · Dec 21, 2002

Rune Moberg said:
The minute you treat everyone as a suspect, that's when the
terrorist have achieved control over you.

How true.... Rune, I agree with your posts... as made clear in my own..

Keith

"Just some guy," and founder of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/

"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together guys"

{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }

Rune Moberg · Dec 21, 2002

Keith Krebs said:
Increase the angle of attack too much and the plane stalls,

Sure, but modern planes have automatic safeguards in place to control (or rather keep from happening) stalls? (maybe not props, but this wasn't a small Cessna)

Or put differently: Did the airplane in question stall?

--
Rune, http://runesbike.com/

Rune Moberg · Dec 21, 2002

Keith Krebs said:
How true.... Rune, I agree with your posts... as made clear in my
own..

Yes, I didn't bother following up to your postings for that reason. Not much of a discussion when you agree with someone. (I'm not sure about us seeing eye-to-eye on gun control laws or not though, but that's a different discussion that I feel warrants further study, atleast on my part ;-) )

--
Rune, http://runesbike.com/

DavidP #28649 · Dec 21, 2002

I have it on good authority (I have a friend who flies 767's for a living) that a person of reasonable intelligence can fly and land a 767, with instructions from the ground. (Yeah, just like on TV). They literally CAN "land themselves".

Thomas Gardner said:
That or after the pilots were taken out, nobody else knew how to
fly the plane. Oh, let's see, pull back on the steering wheel.
Crash!!!!!!

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

DavidP #28649 · Dec 21, 2002

I don't think they've publicly released the details on exactly how that plane crashed.

Assuming it wasn't shot down by the US (a possibility, however slight), I susect that the terrorists simply put it into a nose dive (intentionally or unintentionally), and that there was not enough altitude left to recover, assuming the civilians on board ever DID actually get control of the plane (and I doubt they did).

Rune Moberg said:
Sure, but modern planes have automatic safeguards in place to
control (or rather keep from happening) stalls? (maybe not props,
but this wasn't a small Cessna)

Or put differently: Did the airplane in question stall?

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

DavidP #28649 · Dec 21, 2002

Probably about the same as we feel now when chosen for a "random search".

Is it any better to submit EVERYBODY to these types of searches?

If they're going to practice such things at all, it would make sense to do it where it would have the most likelihood of having an effect.

Searching gramma and her grandkids is senseless. I suspect they're "randomly" chosen because the "security guards" are gutless cowards. Who would you rather search? Somebody you KNOW isn't going to harm you, or somebody who might decide to kill you because he's been discovered?

Peter Lindsey said:
In response to your comment on searching all Muslims.. (which is
pretty much the case already.) How would you feel if suddenly it
was your race/religion/hair-colour who were under scrutiny, and
you couldn't travel anywhere without being subject to humiliating
questioning, searches, and the subsequent missed-flights and delays?

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

povimage · Dec 21, 2002

Peter Galbavy said:
What a small minded, xenophobic bunch of Yanks. I KNOW that not all
Americans (US) are like you, but all you are doing is supporting
the stereotype that IS building up around the world. Not that you
care, you probably don't even have a passport and wouldn't know
where on the map 'Europe' is anyway.

Timothy McVeigh mean anything ? The IRA (funded by so many
wonderful, patriots in the US) ? The list goes on and on.

Oh, Peter, you'd love the latest Gov't sponsored "war on Drugs" commercial here..

It goes something like thiis:

Setting - a bar

Scroungy looking dude - "So if I buy drugs I'm supporting terrorism?"

Business Suit dude - "Yes"

Scroungy looking dude -"Well how much"

Business Suit dude - "only a few dollars"

Scroungy looking dude - "That's ok then.."

Business Suit dude - "So,you're saying supporting terrorism 'just a little is OK?"

Of course, I've considered withholding my taxes this year on exactly that basis..

I figure:

1) The Bush administration has now ok'd and ordered assasinations.

2) The US gov't for many years provided aid and training to Al Qaeda and other Mujahideen.

3) We send foreign aid to Israel and even ignoring their attacks upon Palestinian civilians, the Israelis set up Hamas to counter Yasir Arafat and the PLO when he was in Lebanon.

4) We provided satellite intelligence to Saddam Hussein in his war with Iraq.

5) I'll leave Chile out of this..

6) Guess I should leave right-wing Central American terrorist groups out as well.. Anyone remember "La Mana Blanca?"

7) The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, there's a bunch of "friendly schoolteachers"..

It's sheer idiocy to think you turn people into professional killers and then they suddenly (when YOUR goal are achieved) go home and become everyday contributing members of society.

On the other hand, I think the US Gov't makers a good argument for me not paying my taxes.. Espercially given all the new American laws on the books prohibiting contributions to groups which suppor terrorism.

Sadly, Peter what you see is a bunch of neo-conservatives over at the White House who believe in a world made safe by and for American cultural andeconomic imperialism. A Pax Americana, in which it's OK for the US as the biggest kid on the block to get rid of regimes that are avowedly against US policy.

What they fail to realize is that having different viewpoints and expressing divergent opinions is a Basic human right, guaranteed by the UN Charter as well as our own Constitution (of course **** Cheney calls Americans who disagree with the Administration "UN-american" or "near-traitors").

Remember what Britain's policy on the Continent was called: "The Great Game?"

Well, these neo-conservatives have resurrected that "game" designed to simply and blatantly justify and maintain American supremacy and dominance. What they fail to realize is there are over 5 billion people on this planet, the vast majority of whom are NOT American... and these policies are generating a great deal of justifiable righteous indignation among those non-Americans.

(As well as some of us, "more thoughtful and internationally aware Americans.")

Karl Rove doesn't care b/c non-Americans don't vote in any US elections. From his perspective this is all about maintaining Bush in the Presidency - and this entire Administration follow that roadmap.

"Just some guy," and founder of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/

"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together guys"

{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }

povimage · Dec 21, 2002

DavidP said:
I have it on good authority (I have a friend who flies 767's for a
living) that a person of reasonable intelligence can fly and land a
767, with instructions from the ground. (Yeah, just like on TV).
They literally CAN "land themselves".

The problem is that is quite different from pulling out of a deep descent, a spin. or a partial rolll.

For that, even experienced pilots need simulator time and training...

Sometimes, even they blow it in such situatiuons, as has happened in other crashes..

Keith

"Just some guy," and founder of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/

"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together guys"

{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }

(OT) Flying with unlocked backage

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Member

Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Member

Member

Keyboard shortcuts