Text 12370, 108 rader
Skriven 2011-06-18 14:43:00 av Glen Jamieson
     Kommentar till en text av Michael Loo
Ärende: SKYHIGH 4 A CHANGE 10618
================================
 -=> Quoting Michael Loo to Glen Jamieson <=-

 GJ> The air inlet to the cabin would probably all
 GJ> or mainly through the overhead nozzles.
 ML> That would make sense, but it isn't true, particularly
 ML> in the case of the still commonly-used Boeing 767,
 ML> which has no such nozzles, even in first class. I
 ML> rather enjoy that aircraft but for this oddity.

I do like to have some control over my environment, and be able to
quantify and direct my air supply.

 ML> The exhaust air vents you
 GJ> have noted are where I would expect them to be.
 ML> They shouldn't be right at floor level, as that would
 ML> cause their cleaning schedule to be more demanding than

True.  The return air could be anywhere below fart level.

 ML> the airlines could afford. There are parallel grooves
 ML> running over the passenger seats on some aircraft,
 ML> lengthways along the fuselage, that might serve
 ML> both directions, I'm not sure. Next time I'm on a
 ML> US Air craft when it does its wheezing thing I will
 ML> try to determine how the air is flowing.

Release a cloud of white powder or smoke and see what happens.
 
 GJ> I remember once, on a cold day, being told not to close off the
 GJ> overhead vents, as they were needed for proper ventilation of the
 GJ> plane (or was it a train...).
 ML> I've heard only this advice only in hot weather.

I remember now.  It was in a plane held on the ground for a while.  It
could have got hot, but the air was very cold.

 ML> ==
 
 GJ> If I was in charge of world transport security I would run a program
 GJ> of very obvious and well publicised screening of passengers, so that
 GJ> they would think a lot was being done to protect them from harm, but
 GJ> all that would have little or no effect on the dedicated, professional
 GJ> terrorist, who would have already worked out ways of bypassing those
 GJ> detectors.  My secret, secondary program would use forms of detection
 GJ> that (hopefully) the professionals had not yet been able to find.  It
 GJ> would also depend a lot on counter-espionage, with spies within ETA,
 GJ> Al Qaeda, etc.

 ML> What gives you the idea that that isn't being done?

As I am sure that at least some of the guardians of our continued
existance are as cluey as me, I am sure it is being done, but of
course not admitted.
 
 GJ> I recently saw an investigatory program on the manufacturing faults in
 GJ> 737s of the New Generation.  It was rather horrifying, showing
 GJ> evidence that most of the fuselage parts made by the subcontractor,
 GJ> Ducummun Inc were being marked and drilled by hand, instead of the
 GJ> highly accurate Numerically Controlled drilling machines, which are
 GJ> accurate to within .002".

 ML> I knew of issues along these lines with the 737-300 and 737-500,
 ML> which are dreadful aircraft; Boeing sued Ducommun in 2000, and
 ML> I'd hoped the issue had been resolved.

The impression given by the program was that most of those
sub-standard planes were still flying, unrepaired.
 
 GJ> Noting that these planes were made since 1997 or so, that covers most
 GJ> of the 737s operated by Qantas.  What have you heard from your spies?

 ML> Most of the flap has been about the unsafe seats being fitted
 ML> onto the 737-800s and A380s by a spinoff of Toyota: the company
 ML> admitted to having falsified testing records (including putting
 ML> dummy computer screens in front of government officials monitoring
 ML> the tests), using unsafe plastic materials, and altering agreed-
 ML> upon designs. Very Japanese!

I have noticed differences between the seats used in the same model of
aircraft when it is owned by different companies.  Perhaps made by the
same seat company, or different ones.  Who knows?
 
 GJ> I am hoping to fly to Darwin in a week or so, but at present all jets
 GJ> out of Adelaide and Melbourne airports are grounded because of the
 GJ> dust cloud from the Chilean volcano eruption.  Commuter turbo-props
 GJ> are still flying, but at a lower altitude.

 ML> Would regular propeller planes have an easier time of it,
 ML> as their engines may not be quite so airflow hungry?

The air going through the combustion chambers of the gas turbines that
drive the propellers would be much the same as that through a jet.
The main difference between the two types of planes is that the jets
are most efficient when flying higher, faster.  The turboprops can and
do operate economically at lower altitudes - less than 10,000 feet.
The dust clouds which came floating over southern Australia were
generally above 9,000 feet, so it was easy for the smaller commuter
planes to fly beneath.

 GJ> similarly trapped anywhere?
 ML> Close, but this time being far north has been helpful.

How very fortunate for you!

___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR]

--- FLAME v2.0/b
 * Origin: Braintap BBS Adelaide Australia (3:800/449)