If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I agree that the figures listed in the article are not standard and are confusing. However it is not as confusing as you thinking that those figures could be interpreted as metric. 30,200 feet and 31,800 feet is not metric flight levels are they?
=====
9,700 meters is a standard metric flight level altitude?
Don't you see why I might be confused and suspicious of you for suggesting that the pilots were flying metric flight levels?
As of 11/07 the metric FL's in China were changed. 30100' = 9200 Meters
31800' = 9700 Meters. I am taking these off of the charts that Atlas keeps in the aircraft. I will be glad to email one to you, it is a pdf file and to large to attach here.
I'm sorry for any confusion or arguments that my post presented. I just posted what they had on their website.
I do work for a domestic US airline, and it should be noted that I do not represent such airline, or any airline. My opinions are mine alone, and aren't reflective of anything but my own knowledge, or what I am trying to learn. At no time will I discuss my specific airline, internal policies, or any such info.
I'm sorry for any confusion or arguments that my post presented. I just posted what they had on their website.
First reports are almost always inaccurate. I usually give it a little time and check these stories from a couple of trusted news sources. Aviation Herald is pretty reliable as a starting place, but legitimate news agencies like Reuters and AP are generally well-disciplined in journalism. Fox is notoriously unreliable because they tend to report stories from first reports from unofficial sources before fact-checking them—as they are in the entertainment business where the scoop is everything (which is brilliant from a ratings point of view - the cable audience seems to value 'news when it happens' over factual accuracy). If you get something off Fox, I strongly advise you to cross-check it with the news agencies before posting.
I do work for a domestic US airline, and it should be noted that I do not represent such airline, or any airline. My opinions are mine alone, and aren't reflective of anything but my own knowledge, or what I am trying to learn. At no time will I discuss my specific airline, internal policies, or any such info.
That's exactly the kind of discrimination against real Fox news that boils my blood... You, sir are a Fascist, and evidently mentally unsound...You Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
If you can bend your feeble mind to this: http://www.wierdos.com/ Proof that you are Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. This is why Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
And furthermore if you insult Fox again I'll cry. Not girly or man loves man tears (not that I'm homophobic - I just don't like fags), but proper patriotic tears for true american men like Rock Hudson!
I do work for a domestic US airline, and it should be noted that I do not represent such airline, or any airline. My opinions are mine alone, and aren't reflective of anything but my own knowledge, or what I am trying to learn. At no time will I discuss my specific airline, internal policies, or any such info.
Your post is invalid. In order to legitimately impersonate uncle one must adopt the appropriate terminology. The following term must be added at least five times per post:
Fascist liberal or Liberal Fascist (these are interchangeable)
In Lieu of above-mentioned, the following will suffice if repeated on at least eight occasions during the posting:
Well, there is an issue with the seatbelt signs. Sometimes they are on for hours (literally) with no sign of turbulence or no aparent reason whatsoever, while the cabin crew comes and goes, serves the meals and drinks, and everything that go inside has to go outside eventually.
That happened to me more than once. In one coocasion I wait as much as I could (a couple of hours) but then I HAD to get up and go in spite of the seat belts being on.
Sometimes I tend to belive that they think "Oh, let´s put this thingie on so we keep'em as quiet as possible"
And almost always the signs are on and the cabin crew still comes and goes, unless there is a direct PA from the cockpit telling them to seat.
If there is a risk of turbulence that deserves seatbelt signs, there is no reason for the cabin crew to be unsecured, carryng heavy dangerous carts through the aisle and serving food and spillable drinks.
That very much compromises the credibility on the seat belt sign.
That said, I keep it latched all the time while seated, and I keep seated most of the time but to go to the lav or on very long flights a few minutes to stretch my non-seat-pitch compatible legs (I'm 6' 4").
--- 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 ---
6'4!!! I don't think I'll argue with you again... you'd be able to squash me like an ant
The seatbelt vs service is one that seems to vary from airline to airline.
In my airline, if the seatbelt sign is on, everyone is belted in, from pilots in full harnesses to the cabin crew in their jumpseats (or sometimes pax seats).
Others, however, do as you describe, where the idea is to keep the belts sign on to keep people seated so that the flight attendants have a free run to do the service, or to keep people seated for the possibility of light turbulence (understanding that the cabin crew are able to handle rougher flight as well as being on faster "recall".
My preference is for the former like my airline does it... but its just a preference.
As for if it is on for a long time - I can assure you that if it goes on during the middle of the flight, you should be sure to stay seated. There might not be any bumps, but it is usually because we can see some suspicious cloud, or we've got other pilot reports of turbulence in the area, and its far safer than sorry.
Remember, if the cabin attendants are seated, we can't have our coffee... so we want it on as little as possible too
I've noticed that the No Smoking sign stays on all the time too. Hmmm...
In my experience, when the pilots realize they will soon be entering dangerously unstable air, they come on the intercom and say, "Weeeell folks (the FAA now requires that pax be addressed as 'folks'. I think this should be accompanied by a banjo as well), we're expecting a few bumps up ahead (this means at least 5 on the Richter scale) so I've gone ahead and turned on the seatbelt sign for your safety". At this point it should be perfectly clear to pax to strap in and stay there. If the pilot simply hits the seat belt sign and sternly announces 'Flight attendants return to your seats' or something of that nature, either unexpected, dangerous clear air turbulence is imminent or you are on Lufthansa.
I've noticed that the No Smoking sign stays on all the time too. Hmmm...
Because smoking is banned at all times? Or is that stating the obvious :P.
Actually, my airline do not have it switched on all the time... we are able to turn it off to allow people to sleep under certain circumstances.
That is also the reason we tend not to make long-winded announcements about turbulence at night... just keep it simple.
A good pilot will make a PA during the day when the seatbelt sign is on for a protracted period to make sure passengers stay aware of the fact it is on, and to make people realise it is for a reason.
Ah, smoking is not allowed at any time, and there are numerous announcements and fixed placards that reflect this.
So why do we even have an illuminated, switchable no smoking sign? It is completely redundant. Problem is it is part of the aircraft certification, and would cost money to have removed.
The illuminated signs are quite bright, and are definately a distraction to sleep, so after the service when everyone wants to sleep, an announcement is (again) made that smoking is not allowed, and we are switching off the sign to allow them to sleep.
It works, and certainly from a personal point of view makes it considerably easier to sleep. It also hasn't increased the rate of people ducking into the lav for a smoke, and people haven't started lighting up mid cabin.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment