Sure we've got cheap flights...

[Adam the Akrodude]

but has something been lost in the process? Being the romantic fool that I am, I still feel commercial aviation was somewhat cooler way back when. Yes, it was a damn sight more dangerous too, but that added to the mystic of flying I think. I like the idea of it being a adventure to get to the UK, taking a few days in the process, with stop offs at Singa's, perhaps Bombay and Cairo along that way. Did aviation in general (civil and military) progress too quickly?

Found this site.

http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2013/05 ... 1960s.html

[_BlackHawk_]

Oh I dunno, you can still find that mystic of not know if you'll arrive at your destination alive; fly Adam Air or Garuda for that 'I don't know if I'll live through this' experience.

[Adam the Akrodude]

Oh I dunno, you can still find that mystic of not know if you'll arrive at your destination alive; fly Adam Air or Garuda for that 'I don't know if I'll live through this' experience.

Been there, done that - got the t-shirt dude! I've been on some pretty well aged aeroplanes, somehow still allowed to fly in S.E.Asia. Remember being on a filthy old F-27 from Miri to Sandakan in 1981. It even had a small bronze plaque in the cabin saying that the original owner was some crap South American airline in 1959! I've also scared the crappers out of myself in a aeroplane enough times as well. I guess my point is that I just think it was cooler when people used to dressed up to go flying - not got pissed as fast as possible on their cheap holiday flight to Bali or Thailand.

Please don't mind my Monday mid-life grumpy b/s coming from me!

Actually, two of my scariest moments were on Aussie flights.
1. On final into Heathrow on a big Aussie 747-400. Felt this nasty sink on what was final (possibly a micro-burst I'm guessing from a nearby Cb) and I thought "oh crap!". There were nice big puffy summer Cb's around at the time. The drivers up front gave that big bird the spurs aborting the landing, but we got low. We then spent the next 30 min's on a low altitude scenic flight around London waiting to get slotted into the pattern - very nice!
2. Coming back from Tassie once in a horrible little BAe-146. No, we didn't suffer from oil fumes, but because those P.O.S can't climb very high, we had to punch right through a storm and the Capt then announced "Cabin crew - BRACE, BRACE, BRACE!". The FA near me was serving drinks/food. She shot her arms out and up and was then floating near the top of the cabin with her trolley - next second - BANG, she was on the floor - luckily the trolley missed her and we nearby pax! Tea, coffee and everything else loose went flying too. It was the most severe turbulence I've ever been through. The cabin got real quiet - no screaming, nothing.

Whilst not "scary" (well, some of the pax were a little!), one interesting flight I had back from a mine once in WA I class as the most "Aussie" flight I've been on. It was a 0800 departure back to Perth on a Dash-8. Just after t/o in cruise-climb, the FA walks up the isle with a tray full of VB's for everyone coming off "swing". Cool I thought! I ain't a "teetotaler" by any means, but I just wanted a coffee at that time of the morning!

I do agree though, there is still plenty of "adventure" to be had in aviation still!

[Capt NG]

That's a good site Adam..thanks for sharing. I collect that kind of memorabilia, old airline posters etc..

Re airlines.. You get what you pay for nowadays...I just wish common sense prevails at the end of the day and sustainability keeps myself and others in a job for the next 15-20 years and beyond. It's a tough game the airline world.

[Tony P]

Did I hear rightly on the news that Qantas want to get rid of life rafts?

[_BlackHawk_]

Yeh, for domestic flights. I don't think it's a problem, I mean besides the fact you're scraping the bottom of the barrel so hard you need to get rid of the life rafts to save money on fuel. Most aircraft that go down do so in a swallow dive at mach 2 anyways, fat lot of a good a life raft will do, might as well equip the an aircraft with parachutes.

[Tony P]

Hudson river?

[Adam the Akrodude]

Yeh, for domestic flights. I don't think it's a problem, I mean besides the fact you're scraping the bottom of the barrel so hard you need to get rid of the life rafts to save money on fuel. Most aircraft that go down do so in a swallow dive at mach 2 anyways, fat lot of a good a life raft will do, might as well equip the an aircraft with parachutes.

Brad, plenty of airliners have gone into the water over the years, off the end of runways and ditching - some in recent times. Plenty of incidents that almost involved ditching as well.

Not sure if this is a good thing or not. Murphy's law is such that if there is a chance of such a incident occurring, over time it eventually will. You pro's in the industry will hopefully correct me if I am wrong, but the air slides act as lift rafts too don't they? All seats have life jackets as well. The chances of me actually needing the features of my helmet and parachute are pretty slim, yet I have chosen to wear these in the past. You don't want to be in that situation where you're saying - Jeez, wish we had those life rafts on-board, or Jeez, wish I'd worn my parachute today. There have and will always be compromises when it comes to the cost of safety in aviation.

I think this misses the essential fact that QANTAS is in big trouble. Perhaps if its aircraft type purchases had been different in recent times, this mess may not be as great? Saving $1 million won't help that much when your opposition is getting subsidized fuel, filling more seats and flying more efficient aeroplanes, plus a host of other issues discussed elsewhere on this forum thus compromising its bottom line. This seems to me a bit of a panic stations idea.

[_BlackHawk_]

That's what I was getting at Adam, the real issue is they are trying to save mere pennies. What we should be doing is scraping that ridiculous tax on air, the Carbon Dioxide Tax, that would save QANTAS 120 million dollars a year.

There haven't been many incidents where life rafts would have helped a great deal. I don't think 1549 used the life rafts, I think they just deployed the emergency exit ramps or stood on the wings.

[Adam the Akrodude]

That's what I was getting at Adam, the real issue is they are trying to save mere pennies. What we should be doing is scraping that ridiculous tax on air, the Carbon Dioxide Tax, that would save QANTAS 120 million dollars a year.

There haven't been many incidents where life rafts would have helped a great deal. I don't think 1549 used the life rafts, I think they just deployed the emergency exit ramps or stood on the wings.

Agreed, repealing the stupid carbon tax is what most of the country voted for wasn't it? "Electricity Bill" can't accept this though, costing our country many more millions and jobs - don't get me started!

I'm no expert on safety, but you don't just consider what has occurred in the past, but also consider what possibly could happen in the future and build in a reasonable level of safety equipment/protection based on the risk and the potential for accidents. I would certainly hope that for any over water flight outside of gliding range, I'd have at least something to float around in if need be - just sayin' is all! Ol' Capt. Murphy knew his shit! I just would not like to be in a airliner when ol' Murphy's Law kicks in and it becomes a glider over water.

Oh yeah, and please do not inflate your life jacket inside the cabin!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqKdVo_IcGs