Transportation safety 2

Message boards : Cafe SETI : Transportation safety 2
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 · 39 · 40 · Next

AuthorMessage
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24877
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1703446 - Posted: 20 Jul 2015, 18:19:54 UTC - in response to Message 1703400.  

Sorry Rob, with all the miles that I've covered, I was doing my best to be polite about it :-)

Agree with you 100%. Technology cannot make up for what some people lack between their ears.
ID: 1703446 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24877
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1703449 - Posted: 20 Jul 2015, 18:27:51 UTC - in response to Message 1694302.  

The problem is Europe not the UK. I personally know of 8 drivers here where they "bought" their license & to see them drive scares the crap out of me. It is not easy to gain a HGV license here & it is damned expensive.

An ordinary driving license will cost you £30 every ten years (now that the paper counterpart is no longer valid, watch that cost increase every few years).

HGV Costs

Photocard £30 (every 10 years)
Digital Tachograph Card £38 (every 10 5 years)
dCPC Card £350 (every 5 years)

Annual cost photocard £3
Annual cost HGV £76.80 £80.60

All UK HGV drivers are now on a Government database all because of the dCPC so easily verifiable. Foreign drivers...

I'm quoting my own post due to the fact that I always admit my mistakes, saves a lot of hassle :-)

& due to the WTD, I'm available to annoy you all for the next 14 days :-)
Done 815h 27m in the last 15 weeks - WTD says 816 in 17 weeks :-(
ID: 1703449 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24877
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1703968 - Posted: 22 Jul 2015, 13:49:01 UTC

This is a 1st for me, actually got something that has dCPC organisations in a pickle: "It's an interesting brain teaser" - their words, not mine.

Bike Danger

1st, I'm glad that the motorcyclist was not injured.
2nd, I for one, will be glad when all the points raised in the report actually come to fruition as I've had some close calls similar to the one in the report. They occurred not because of a lack of concentration, but because of the obvious blind spots all lorries have on turning.

Now for the brain Teaser (those who have FULL understanding of driving & drivers hours/tacho regulations will see it instantly).

If what is being asked for gets implemented, Londoners(as well as other major cities that implement this) will see their everyday costs increase :-)

Actual example

Arrive at 1st delivery approx. 04:00, continue with other deliveries & hit Central London approx. 07:45, do drop & depart at 07:55 - what happens at 08:00?

Forced to stop for an hour due to the rush hour? Where does one park a lorry in Central London?

Also, with the driver now being an hour behind schedule, what happens at 12:00?

No deliveries allowed in the West End after 12:00 (well, deliveries can be made, but those parking tickets are going to mount up) - Oops :-)

& the point raised with the dCPC organisations which is getting looked at is this: - How does the driver record that? Rest/Other work/POA?
ID: 1703968 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24877
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1703969 - Posted: 22 Jul 2015, 14:01:56 UTC

Update on Glasgow fatal crash

Based on this report & comments made: -

"members of the public saw Mr Clarke apparently unconscious behind the wheel.

The driver Harry Clarke had had an operation on his hands but had no other health problems, such as dizziness or fainting, in the previous three years.

One is the medical background, employment record and training of the driver, Mr Clarke, who has since said he has no memory of the crash itself."

As the vehicle itself has been shown to have no mechanical defect at the time of the accident, then the driver has to be looked at closely.

I still say that the HGV driving age regulations should not have been reduced.
ID: 1703969 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1704106 - Posted: 22 Jul 2015, 20:20:54 UTC - in response to Message 1699388.  

Uh, radar? Talking to ground control who has radar. F-16 has air-to-air radar. Cessena 150 should have transponder with altitude reporting and is an all metal aircraft. Both pilots have eyeballs. Just how does this happen? Did everyone happen to look the other way at the same time?!

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FIGHTER_JET_PLANE_COLLISION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-07-07-18-12-08
MONCKS CORNER, S.C. (AP) -- An F-16 fighter jet smashed into a small plane Tuesday over South Carolina, killing two people and raining down plane parts and debris over a wide swath of marshes and rice fields.

The two people aboard the smaller Cessna were killed, and the plane was completely destroyed, National Transportation Safety Board spokesman Peter Knudson said. The pilot of the F-16 ejected and "is apparently uninjured," he said. A press release from Shaw Air Force Base in Sumter said the pilot, Maj. Aaron Johnson from the 55th Fighter Squadron, was taken to Joint Base Charleston's medical clinic for observation.

Unfortunately, the accident report will read, "Failure to see and avoid" as all midair collision reports do. What will be the contributing factors?

Well, we now have the preliminary report.
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20150707X22207&key=1
Doesn't look too good for the F-16 pilot. Told where the Cessna was. Told to turn and avoid. Delay. Might not be so good for the controller, perhaps he should have noticed it earlier, but some of this is based on software noticing intersecting paths.
ID: 1704106 · Report as offensive
Profile Bill Walker
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 99
Posts: 3868
Credit: 2,697,267
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1704148 - Posted: 22 Jul 2015, 23:20:45 UTC - in response to Message 1704106.  

I hate to make statements based on a preliminary report, as there probably more facts to come out, but IMHO...

The controller made a huge leap of faith in handing off the situation to the fast mover with such a short time to collision and such a small indicated altitude difference (further facts to come out will include how much indicated altitudes varied from true altitudes, but it seems to have been enough to cause this accident). When the controller stated "traffic below you at 1400 feet" he was implying everything was OK, when clearly it wasn't.

The controller correctly asked the F-16 for confirmation of visual contact, and if it was not received in a timely fashion, he should have issued an avoidance move to the jet in a timely fashion. It remains to be shown that the F-16 pilot had enough time to complete the requested turn, or even if the requested turn would have avoided the collision. The jet was under positive control, literally placing everybody's fate in the controllers hands.

ID: 1704148 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1704165 - Posted: 23 Jul 2015, 2:21:50 UTC - in response to Message 1704148.  

I hate to make statements based on a preliminary report, as there probably more facts to come out, but IMHO...

The controller made a huge leap of faith in handing off the situation to the fast mover with such a short time to collision and such a small indicated altitude difference (further facts to come out will include how much indicated altitudes varied from true altitudes, but it seems to have been enough to cause this accident). When the controller stated "traffic below you at 1400 feet" he was implying everything was OK, when clearly it wasn't.

The controller correctly asked the F-16 for confirmation of visual contact, and if it was not received in a timely fashion, he should have issued an avoidance move to the jet in a timely fashion. It remains to be shown that the F-16 pilot had enough time to complete the requested turn, or even if the requested turn would have avoided the collision. The jet was under positive control, literally placing everybody's fate in the controllers hands.

The weather conditions reported at MKS at 1055 included calm winds, 10 statute miles visibility, scattered clouds at 2,600 feet agl, a temperature of 30 degrees C, a dew point of 22 degrees C, and an altimeter setting of 30.15 inches of mercury.

Bill, last I checked, if you were in VMC you still were required to use your eyeballs.

As to altitudes, with the transponder reporting pressure altitude at 29.92" and weather at 30.15" you tell me which way and by how much the transponder was off, assuming it was still in calibration. A ground school question. Now tell me if the radar the controller was looking at compensates for it? While you are looking up that, what are the regulations on IFR radar separation, altitude and distance. Do those change if the pilot reports VMC and a "practice approach?" The question being was the first call of traffic already after those minimums were broken? Should the jet pilot have called no joy sooner?

I can remember another accident very similar to this one in San Diego and both aircraft were talking to the controller and one reported the other in sight. And another in Cerritos. One thing they all had in common, VMC!
ID: 1704165 · Report as offensive
Profile Bill Walker
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 99
Posts: 3868
Credit: 2,697,267
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1704249 - Posted: 23 Jul 2015, 12:59:19 UTC - in response to Message 1704165.  
Last modified: 23 Jul 2015, 13:11:17 UTC


Bill, last I checked, if you were in VMC you still were required to use your eyeballs.


And this is why I dislike commenting on preliminary reports. But since you brought it up... ;)

The F-16 was on a published approach procedure, cleared to the approach by the tower. The tower reported "traffic below you" when he clearly had no way of knowing this.

As to altitudes, with the transponder reporting pressure altitude at 29.92" and weather at 30.15" you tell me which way and by how much the transponder was off, assuming it was still in calibration. A ground school question. Now tell me if the radar the controller was looking at compensates for it?


All good questions. The aircraft setting 30.15 will indicate higher than the transponder. Bigger question: what altimeter setting was in each aircraft? Did the 150 assume he was well clear of the approach path? I'm a little surprised at the statement in the report that the 150 had no need to be talking to the tower. He was obviously very close to a published approach path, should he have been talking to a regional controller? Was he? We don't know yet.

Regardless of the corrections applied or not applied on the controllers scope, and regardless of the calibration and usage of the two transponders involved, the controller's scope indicates altitude rounded to the nearest 100 feet. Calling two aircraft indicating 1400 and 1500 feet "separated" is, I repeat, a huge leap of faith. Added in Edit: The controller also knew the "higher" aircraft was descending, under his control, and had no way of knowing the intentions of the other aircraft, although he should have observed it had a recent history of climbing. That 100 foot vertical separation, even if it was real, was diminishing.

While you are looking up that, what are the regulations on IFR radar separation, altitude and distance. Do those change if the pilot reports VMC and a "practice approach?" The question being was the first call of traffic already after those minimums were broken?


In Canada the controller has a lot of leeway in these calls when the aircraft is under direct control, i.e. cleared to the approach.

Should the jet pilot have called no joy sooner?


In Canada, by law, the controller has to assume no positive response from a pilot is a negative response. I.e., if the pilot says nothing, he doesn't have the traffic. I still question the timing here. The controller has to assume the F-16 will take some time to identify the traffic, and then take some additional time to initiate any corrective action. Given the closing rates, time was not in abundance here.

I can remember another accident very similar to this one in San Diego and both aircraft were talking to the controller and one reported the other in sight. And another in Cerritos. One thing they all had in common, VMC!


And recent history has shown time and time again that VMC plus "see and be seen" simply doesn't work, and can't work, in every situation. That is why we are spending so much time and money on things like multi-layer control zones and TCAS.

The practice approach in VMC is a classic case where this doesn't work. The pilot workload does not allow enough time "eyeballs out". With 20-20 hindsight, the controller should have commanded the higher altitude and higher performance aircraft (the F-16) to abandoned the approach and climb immediately. This would have increased the vertical separation.

Still too many question to draw any real conclusions, IMHO.

ID: 1704249 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1704312 - Posted: 23 Jul 2015, 16:38:01 UTC - in response to Message 1704249.  


Bill, last I checked, if you were in VMC you still were required to use your eyeballs.


And this is why I dislike commenting on preliminary reports. But since you brought it up... ;)

The F-16 was on a published approach procedure, cleared to the approach by the tower. The tower reported "traffic below you" when he clearly had no way of knowing this.

As to altitudes, with the transponder reporting pressure altitude at 29.92" and weather at 30.15" you tell me which way and by how much the transponder was off, assuming it was still in calibration. A ground school question. Now tell me if the radar the controller was looking at compensates for it?


All good questions. The aircraft setting 30.15 will indicate higher than the transponder. Bigger question: what altimeter setting was in each aircraft? Did the 150 assume he was well clear of the approach path? I'm a little surprised at the statement in the report that the 150 had no need to be talking to the tower. He was obviously very close to a published approach path, should he have been talking to a regional controller? Was he? We don't know yet.

Regardless of the corrections applied or not applied on the controllers scope, and regardless of the calibration and usage of the two transponders involved, the controller's scope indicates altitude rounded to the nearest 100 feet. Calling two aircraft indicating 1400 and 1500 feet "separated" is, I repeat, a huge leap of faith. Added in Edit: The controller also knew the "higher" aircraft was descending, under his control, and had no way of knowing the intentions of the other aircraft, although he should have observed it had a recent history of climbing. That 100 foot vertical separation, even if it was real, was diminishing.

While you are looking up that, what are the regulations on IFR radar separation, altitude and distance. Do those change if the pilot reports VMC and a "practice approach?" The question being was the first call of traffic already after those minimums were broken?


In Canada the controller has a lot of leeway in these calls when the aircraft is under direct control, i.e. cleared to the approach.

Should the jet pilot have called no joy sooner?


In Canada, by law, the controller has to assume no positive response from a pilot is a negative response. I.e., if the pilot says nothing, he doesn't have the traffic. I still question the timing here. The controller has to assume the F-16 will take some time to identify the traffic, and then take some additional time to initiate any corrective action. Given the closing rates, time was not in abundance here.

I can remember another accident very similar to this one in San Diego and both aircraft were talking to the controller and one reported the other in sight. And another in Cerritos. One thing they all had in common, VMC!


And recent history has shown time and time again that VMC plus "see and be seen" simply doesn't work, and can't work, in every situation. That is why we are spending so much time and money on things like multi-layer control zones and TCAS.

The practice approach in VMC is a classic case where this doesn't work. The pilot workload does not allow enough time "eyeballs out". With 20-20 hindsight, the controller should have commanded the higher altitude and higher performance aircraft (the F-16) to abandoned the approach and climb immediately. This would have increased the vertical separation.

Still too many question to draw any real conclusions, IMHO.

Lets both have published the information:
Approach plate http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1508/00076HVDT15.PDF
VFR Sectional http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KCHS/sectional
Class C Requirements http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/media/PHAK%20-%20Chapter%2014.pdf

If the preliminary report says the Cessna was not required to be in contact then they have determined the location of the collision and found it to be outside the Class C airspace. Using the information in the report that the Cessna had been airborne for a little over 3 minutes and a good guess on its ground speed and departure point, I strongly suspect it was still outside the outside ring of the Class C airspace, 1200 - 4000 MSL, hence in Class E airspace.

A reading of the approach plate indicates a good portion of this approach is flown in Class E airspace (see equipment requirements, no transponder). Note the LOM fix is outside the class C!

As to the controller, he did say "indicated" when he called the traffic. When he did not get a "in sight" reply he did issue the turn. He did not get a "wilco" so he issued the instruction again with an "immediate." Going to be interesting to see what the radio recording from the F-16 shows. Interference on the frequency, or a pilot who was too busy with check lists and looking at plates to do the duty to fly the aircraft first. Or perhaps so cocky in his ability to spot the traffic he didn't react?

As an aside, when I used to listen to "beaver", Miramar, when the top gun school was there, it seemed like at least once a day a pilot got a nastygram from the controller that he had violated the Class B airspace around San Diego Lindbergh, and had a phone call to make once he was on the ground. Military pilots, while very professional, seemingly aren't well versed in the Civilian Airspace system and seem to have issues navigating in and around it, perhaps because they spend so much of their flight time in restricted airspace where they have no civilian rules to follow.

The practice approach in VMC is a classic case where this doesn't work. The pilot workload does not allow enough time "eyeballs out".

Then it is illegal without another qualified pilot onboard to have "eyeballs out."
ID: 1704312 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24877
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1704339 - Posted: 23 Jul 2015, 18:31:41 UTC
Last modified: 23 Jul 2015, 18:32:26 UTC

With the amount of regulations in force in this country regarding the transport industry, am surprised this only hit the news now.

Further update on that Glasgow crash

I was pretty sure that somewhere in the original reports that I saw his age stated as 21, however, looking back, I cannot find that. So assuming I'm correct...

...That is an instant loss of PSV/HGV until a full medical determines the cause of the blackout. However, there are 2 worrying aspects to this report...

"In letter, the doctor said Mr Clarke was advised that "he does not need to inform the DVLA of the incident"."

"He referred to notes he had taken on a Blackberry, detailing an incident involving Mr Clarke, while he was a bus driver, on 7 April 2010.

The notes of his daily report from that day state Mr Clarke "blacked out for a couple of minutes" while at a bus stop having "taken unwell".

Mr Stewart said he was alerted by a passenger on the number 54 bus that the driver had collapsed at the wheel."

...WTH is a 17/18 year old doing driving a bus?
How the hell did he manage to get a HGV license?
Foreign doctor was it?
ID: 1704339 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14649
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 1704342 - Posted: 23 Jul 2015, 18:42:46 UTC - in response to Message 1704339.  

Earlier this year, Mr Clarke's age was given as 58. So he was probably neither 17 nor 18 when he was driving the bus in 2010.
ID: 1704342 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24877
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1704346 - Posted: 23 Jul 2015, 18:48:07 UTC - in response to Message 1704342.  

Earlier this year, Mr Clarke's age was given as 58. So he was probably neither 17 nor 18 when he was driving the bus in 2010.

Thanks Richard. Must have got that mixed up with another report, so strike the age related comments. It still highlights the offences by both him & the doctor. Any PSV/HGV blackout occurrences must be reported to the DVLA.
ID: 1704346 · Report as offensive
Profile Bill Walker
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 99
Posts: 3868
Credit: 2,697,267
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1704438 - Posted: 23 Jul 2015, 23:23:44 UTC - in response to Message 1704312.  


Then it is illegal without another qualified pilot onboard to have "eyeballs out."


You make several good points, there is still much to be found out though. We need a lawyer to reply to that last statement, but if it was illegal why did the tower clear the F-16 to the approach? Why does a published approach have so much of the route in Class E airspace? Surely there would be times when a "legitimate" TACAN approach, in poor vis, would be underway at the same time as some little airplane runs the scud.

If I remember how to read a US Sectional (I usually let my driver do that these days) the Cessna should have been talking to Charleston Approach on 135.8 well before the collision. No indication yet if he was.

And if the collision occurred at approximately 1500 feet MSL, unless the F-16 was WAY too low they were just a few miles from the airport, within the 4,000 feet to surface "cake layer". Don't you need tower permission to enter that? Even if they were in the 4,000 to 1,200 layer, the Cessna was either busting or about to bust airspace.

Another big unknown is the relative flight paths immediately before impact. If we believe the transponder altitudes, the F-16 descended into the Cessna - from above as viewed from the Cessna. There is NO upward vis in the 150, except for a small arc directly in front of the pilot, from many hours of personal experience. Similarly, if the 150 was below the F-16 nose (the F-16 was slowing, increasing angle of attack throughout the approach) the Cessna could have been completely blocked to him as well. That is why I say there are times when "see and be seen" does not and cannot work.

ID: 1704438 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1704489 - Posted: 24 Jul 2015, 2:50:13 UTC - in response to Message 1704438.  


Then it is illegal without another qualified pilot onboard to have "eyeballs out."


You make several good points, there is still much to be found out though. We need a lawyer to reply to that last statement, but if it was illegal why did the tower clear the F-16 to the approach?

Is ATC required to know if a pilot is capable of doing some procedure before it issues a clearance that has been requested? Or is this the pilot should have not requested the clearance?

Why does a published approach have so much of the route in Class E airspace? Surely there would be times when a "legitimate" TACAN approach, in poor vis, would be underway at the same time as some little airplane runs the scud.

Yes, sometimes TERPS has some nasty surprises in it. Also realize the F-16 was on vectors to a fix, he wasn't flying the Arc segment of the approach which would have had him well clear of airport traffic patterns.

If I remember how to read a US Sectional (I usually let my driver do that these days) the Cessna should have been talking to Charleston Approach on 135.8 well before the collision. No indication yet if he was.

I think you are putting him much farther away from his starting point than he was. I doubt he was far enough away to not still be on the CTAF at Monks Corner. Remember a C150 would be about 70kts in a climb and 3 minutes would have him within 5 miles of the airport. This would be about the point most pilots would switch to Charleston if they intended to talk to them at all. If he was planning on staying clear of the inverted wedding cake he could legally not talk to them. (Not smart but legal)

Airports are 17 NM apart, outer ring is 10 NM from the AFB.

And if the collision occurred at approximately 1500 feet MSL, unless the F-16 was WAY too low they were just a few miles from the airport, within the 4,000 feet to surface "cake layer". Don't you need tower permission to enter that? Even if they were in the 4,000 to 1,200 layer, the Cessna was either busting or about to bust airspace.

I think the airspace "busted" was the airspace for Monks County airport, not the AFB's. OBW published info for the airport indicates it has jet operations so pattern altitudes would extend to 1500 AGL or 1600 MSL. Yes, I think the F-16 was cleared to descend to low too far from the AFB, but if there was no traffic on the scope when the clearance was issued no regulations were broken.

Another big unknown is the relative flight paths immediately before impact. If we believe the transponder altitudes, the F-16 descended into the Cessna - from above as viewed from the Cessna. There is NO upward vis in the 150, except for a small arc directly in front of the pilot, from many hours of personal experience. Similarly, if the 150 was below the F-16 nose (the F-16 was slowing, increasing angle of attack throughout the approach) the Cessna could have been completely blocked to him as well. That is why I say there are times when "see and be seen" does not and cannot work.

One thing you missed was ATC told the F-16 the traffic was "opposite direction." Also radar track of the C150 was "generally SE" 135 degrees, or crosswind departure. I'm speculating given the reported destination the C150 was planning on intercepting V1 to the NE towards his destination to avoid some of the complex MOA's around that area. With the opposite direction call and the 260 degree assigned heading to the F-16, it wasn't a dead head on, but I don't think the F-16 would have been in the C-150's wing, more like 10:30 o'clock. Don't know the over the nose visibility of an F-16. This collision happened nowhere near the straight in portion of the approach.


Yes, there still needs to be a final report written, and like every midair "failure to see and avoid"
ID: 1704489 · Report as offensive
Scarecrow

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 00
Posts: 4520
Credit: 486,601
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1704507 - Posted: 24 Jul 2015, 3:41:57 UTC

July 18, Elkhart County Indiana. A stretch limo got high-centered on the tracks. Everyone got out, no injuries. Limo driver might be looking for a new job, however.

Train vs. Limo video
ID: 1704507 · Report as offensive
Profile Bernie Vine
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 May 99
Posts: 9954
Credit: 103,452,613
RAC: 328
United Kingdom
Message 1704545 - Posted: 24 Jul 2015, 7:00:21 UTC - in response to Message 1704507.  

July 18, Elkhart County Indiana. A stretch limo got high-centered on the tracks. Everyone got out, no injuries. Limo driver might be looking for a new job, however.

Train vs. Limo video


And once again the proof that people just don't understand how long a train takes to stop.

On the video the limo driver can be heard saying "Didn't you see me?"

Lucky this time no one was hurt.
ID: 1704545 · Report as offensive
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 22160
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 1704561 - Posted: 24 Jul 2015, 9:21:54 UTC

Having watched that video a couple of times...
First thing that I noticed was that the driver of the limo had managed to get everyone out of the car - which was a very good thing.
Next, someone was waving a "red flag". This may have been more effective had they walked toward the train - which looked as if it was approaching round a bend, so the train driver's line of sight may have been compromised.
Third the limo driver was certainly in shock, but then who wouldn't be on seeing their livelihood destroyed?
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 1704561 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 65709
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 1704620 - Posted: 24 Jul 2015, 13:45:57 UTC - in response to Message 1704545.  

July 18, Elkhart County Indiana. A stretch limo got high-centered on the tracks. Everyone got out, no injuries. Limo driver might be looking for a new job, however.

Train vs. Limo video


And once again the proof that people just don't understand how long a train takes to stop.

On the video the limo driver can be heard saying "Didn't you see me?"

Lucky this time no one was hurt.

Make that most, it' about a mile or so, probably longer if the train was on a downgrade.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 1704620 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24877
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1705580 - Posted: 27 Jul 2015, 13:13:27 UTC

Even though I totally agree with most of the comments on this article, We must obey the Law right? :-)
ID: 1705580 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1706439 - Posted: 29 Jul 2015, 21:11:22 UTC

OMG!!!!
http://abc7.com/travel/airliner-nearly-runs-out-of-fuel-while-landing;-faa-investigating-/890984/
While the Fargo airport was the flight's intended destination, it was temporarily closed for practice by the Navy Blue Angels flying team.

An air traffic controller can be heard telling an Allegiant pilot that his company should have known about the closure, according to audio captured by the website LiveATC.net. The Allegiant pilot said he didn't have enough fuel to reach another airport.

When the controller said there would be a window to land in Fargo in 20 minutes, the pilot responded, "I don't have 20 minutes."

Last I checked airlines were required to file IFR flight plans, even in VFR conditions. IFR minimums on fuel, enough to get to your destination and fly a missed approach PLUS enough to then fly to your alternate destination and fly the approach and then fly for another 45 minutes! You don't go wheels up if you don't have that on board. That's his pilot's license. Never mind that as a pilot you are required to check all available data sources in planning your flight, such as NOTAMS (NOTices to Air Men) which would have listed the airport being closed. Now his company scheduler is also on the hook because he allowed the aircraft to take off headed to an airport that was closed at the arrival time. He also may be on the hook for the fuel issue. The company might have an illegal policy of not carrying enough fuel as carrying excess weight (fuel) costs more. That would be their license!

Simply can't believe the number of idiots involved!
ID: 1706439 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 · 39 · 40 · Next

Message boards : Cafe SETI : Transportation safety 2


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.