Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More shoddy journalism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • More shoddy journalism

    Newsworthy? Absolutely

    Human Interest? Yes

    Humour? Yes

    BUT AS USUAL, ONE VERY SIMPLE, HUGELY IMPORTANT SENTENCE IS MISSING...

    Aircraft doors generally cannot be opened in flight, as they are "locked" in place by the pressurization (and I'd assume a couple of other interlocking mechanisms too).

    And of course, the facts do get in the way of the story- It sounds like "the issue" is that the dude was acting up (drunk? if you want to parlour talk), and that's why he was banned from the airline- the "mistaken for the Lav" issue is just a side story.

    http://news.yahoo.com/this-passenger...131138806.html

    A plane passenger was arrested after he mistook the aircraft’s exit for a toilet door - and tried to open it at 30,000 feet.

    James Gray was on board a KLM flight from Edinburgh to Amsterdam when he made the terrifying blunder, according to reports.

    On touching down at Schiphol Airport, he was whisked away to a detention centre.

    He spent the night in custody, before being fined €600 (about £440).

    Gray - who claims it was a “simple mistake” and a “misunderstanding” - was also slapped with a 5-year ban for flying with the airline.

    But he claims he didn’t know about the ban until he tried to fly back home - and was prevented from boarding the aircraft.

    Gray, from Alloa in Scotland, borrowed cash from a pal so he could fly back with an alternative airline.

    He claimed he would never open a plane door on purpose, and said he’d only touched the handle.

    “I realise the danger of that sort of thing,” he told the Telegraph.

    Schiphol Airport and the Royal Dutch Border Police have refused to comment on the incident, according to the Mail Online.

    A KLM spokesman said that a passenger had been “handed over to authorities due to "his misbehaviour on-board.”
    God forbid the media lift a finger and add single sentences that make stories factually sound.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  • #2
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    Newsworthy? Absolutely

    Human Interest? Yes

    Humour? Yes

    BUT AS USUAL, ONE VERY SIMPLE, HUGELY IMPORTANT SENTENCE IS MISSING...

    Aircraft doors generally cannot be opened in flight, as they are "locked" in place by the pressurization (and I'd assume a couple of other interlocking mechanisms too).

    And of course, the facts do get in the way of the story- It sounds like "the issue" is that the dude was acting up (drunk? if you want to parlour talk), and that's why he was banned from the airline- the "mistaken for the Lav" issue is just a side story.

    http://news.yahoo.com/this-passenger...131138806.html



    God forbid the media lift a finger and add single sentences that make stories factually sound.
    If the story is accurate, this is a huge overreaction by the airline and authorities.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

    Comment


    • #3
      A couple of thoughts here:

      One... Extreme agreement with the lousy media coverage. That being said, I read a memoir Jimmy Doolittle wrote in the 1950's or thereabouts. In it, he gave an excerpt of a letter or document he had written around 1929 complaining about the news media's inaccurate and uneducated reporting of aviation-related news. Some things never change.

      Two... Okay, I've been in a LOT of airline restrooms. They are generally characterized by a flimsy little door with an attached six-inch handle that has a very short throw to release the tiny latch. On the other hand, the main cabin door generally has a VERY LARGE handle which moves a large distance to release many pins that hold the door shut. I spent quite a bit of time at quarter beers (that is, one beer for a quarter, not one quarter of a beer) at the old Rockin R when I was in college. Even after several dollar's worth, I would not have mistaken the exit door for the restroom door. You know, and I know--and he probably knew--that you physically cannot open the door in flight, but I definitely agree there should be some sort of retribution.

      As an aside, I remember a story from two flight instructors from the school I learned and worked at. These two guys went to Alaska to fly Twin Otters back in the early '80's. They were flying some oilfield workers into Anchorage when a bottle started getting passed around. Inevitably, one of the guys decided he had to use the restroom. Luckily his buddies pulled him back after he opened the door because there is only one door on the beloved Twotter and it does NOT lead to the whizatorium (or "loo" for those of you on the other side of the Atlantic).
      The "keep my tail out of trouble" disclaimer: Though I work in the airline industry, anything I post on here is my own speculation or opinion. Nothing I post is to be construed as "official" information from any air carrier or any other entity.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by snydersnapshots View Post
        ...there is only one door on the beloved Twotter and it does NOT lead to the whizatorium (or "loo" for those of you on the other side of the Atlantic).
        I know I say too much for not being an actual, insider ATP, but I think I disagree with your statement. Given that his was Alaska, I'm thinking the door opened to one really HUGE whizatorium.

        Of course, it's probably important that we follow the appropriate, type-specific FCOM/QRH (DHC-6-200 or DHC-6-236A?) for the safest procedures to use it, as well as dealing with side effects of the highly-efficient ventilation system. Along these lines, I see the importance of the aircraft maintaining V1 and V2 as appropriate.
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          I know I say too much for not being an actual, insider ATP, but I think I disagree with your statement. Given that his was Alaska, I'm thinking the door opened to one really HUGE whizatorium.

          Of course, it's probably important that we follow the appropriate, type-specific FCOM/QRH (DHC-6-200 or DHC-6-236A?) for the safest procedures to use it, as well as dealing with side effects of the highly-efficient ventilation system. Along these lines, I see the importance of the aircraft maintaining V1 and V2 as appropriate.
          I would think the most important thing would be carefully managing the direction and rate of whiz flow, so that localized airflow does not result in the stream being redirected toward an undesirable location.

          Okay maybe that's the second most important thing, the most important being not falling out of the plane.

          This is definitely an area where simulator training could be helpful, but I'm not aware of any sims that are designed to reproduce the airflow on the outside of the aircraft.
          Be alert! America needs more lerts.

          Eric Law

          Comment


          • #6
            Good points.

            QUOTE=elaw;634771...

            ...I would think the most important thing would be carefully managing the direction and rate of whiz flow, so that localized airflow does not result in the stream being redirected toward an undesirable location.

            Vmc...yes?

            Okay maybe that's the second most important thing, the most important being not falling out of the plane.

            Not sure I can second guess or debate that...

            This is definitely an area where simulator training could be helpful, but I'm not aware of any sims that are designed to reproduce the airflow on the outside of the aircraft.

            Not even MSFS? Perhaps something could be arranged with a treadmill?
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
              If the story is accurate, this is a huge overreaction by the airline and authorities.
              If the story is accurate, he was either a) absolutely stupid, b) VERY drunk, or c) criminal... and in either case, I think he got off light with the night in detention, the fine and being banned by KLM. Even if a) was the case, I don't think, the public should tolerate fools. (Just like I think putting the warning "Hot contents" on coffee cup lids is an insult to most people and whoever buys a cup of coffee and burns him/herself drinking gets what they deserve.)
              If b) or c) was the case, he should not be allowed back on ANY aircraft of ANY airline...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
                I don't think the public should tolerate fools.
                I believe that's an oxymoron.

                I don't think they've said anywhere what kind of plane this was, but if it was an E-jet, that's a pretty curved door. It sort of screams "fuselage", as in "you are now leaving the big metal tube". Then again, benzos + booze...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  If the story is accurate, this is a huge overreaction by the airline and authorities, and Peter Kesternich.
                  Fixed, and I tend to concur (except that the story is already fact starved)
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X