Ride to hell
 

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:01:20 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Um, pilots come from all over, dummy. He could well have been from
just about any country. Do you really think that a global airline such
as United only employes U.S. pilots?????

At one time there were lots of US pilots all over the world. We had a
zillion cheap light planes and a big military to do the training.

Casady

Ride to hell
 

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:07:54 -0400, "Don White"
wrote:

Vic changed his route to Boston where he can pickup an Air Canada flight
that will get him here somewhere around 1900 hrs AST

All Canadians want you to make it to Halifax, while the US could care
less, it seems. Transportation is better than it once was. During the
war there was a supposedly express train from St John to Toronto. It
was supposed to take 24 hours and always took more than 48. They
derisively called it the ' Bullet '.We don't do airline: we plan to
take a train and a boxboat to Amsterdam when the ice goes out. It
leaves Lake Michigan every two weeks. I wonder what the food is like,
the ship is Polish..

Casady


The Bullet?
Would that be the Newfie Bullet that ran from St. John's to Port aux
Basques, Newfoundland...................
or was there a Bullet that ran from Saint John, New Brunswick to Toronto?

Ride to hell
 

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 16:05:51 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:07:54 -0400, "Don White"
wrote:

Vic changed his route to Boston where he can pickup an Air Canada flight
that will get him here somewhere around 1900 hrs AST

All Canadians want you to make it to Halifax, while the US could care
less, it seems. Transportation is better than it once was. During the
war there was a supposedly express train from St John to Toronto. It
was supposed to take 24 hours and always took more than 48. They
derisively called it the ' Bullet '.We don't do airline: we plan to
take a train and a boxboat to Amsterdam when the ice goes out. It
leaves Lake Michigan every two weeks. I wonder what the food is like,
the ship is Polish..

Stefan Batory? I'm going aboard one of those to get to Europe in the
next few years - I hope.
I don't fly either. Can pick the ship up close to home, travel part
of my old merchant marine route through the lakes, then right across
the pond.
BTW, one of the Cunard Queens - can't remember if it's the Mary -
isn't bad on price, but you have to pick it up on the east coast.
Polish food is mostly meat and potatoes based. If the cook is good,
it'll be good. As long as you're not a vegan.

--Vic

Ride to hell
 

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:17:59 -0400, "Don White"
wrote:


"Richard Casady" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:07:54 -0400, "Don White"
wrote:

Vic changed his route to Boston where he can pickup an Air Canada flight
that will get him here somewhere around 1900 hrs AST

All Canadians want you to make it to Halifax, while the US could care
less, it seems. Transportation is better than it once was. During the
war there was a supposedly express train from St John to Toronto. It
was supposed to take 24 hours and always took more than 48. They
derisively called it the ' Bullet '.We don't do airline: we plan to
take a train and a boxboat to Amsterdam when the ice goes out. It
leaves Lake Michigan every two weeks. I wonder what the food is like,
the ship is Polish..

Casady


The Bullet?
Would that be the Newfie Bullet that ran from St. John's to Port aux
Basques, Newfoundland...................
or was there a Bullet that ran from Saint John, New Brunswick to Toronto?

I read a book by a young Canadian, who did the battle of the Atlantic.
He served first on the Halifax net tender, then an AMC, then a
corvette. And they called it the Newfie Bullet. The name could have
been used for more than one train. He meant a twenty four 'express' to
Toronto. I could be wrong about the Eastern end.

Casady

Ride to hell
 

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:08:25 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 16:05:51 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:07:54 -0400, "Don White"
wrote:

Vic changed his route to Boston where he can pickup an Air Canada flight
that will get him here somewhere around 1900 hrs AST

All Canadians want you to make it to Halifax, while the US could care
less, it seems. Transportation is better than it once was. During the
war there was a supposedly express train from St John to Toronto. It
was supposed to take 24 hours and always took more than 48. They
derisively called it the ' Bullet '.We don't do airline: we plan to
take a train and a boxboat to Amsterdam when the ice goes out. It
leaves Lake Michigan every two weeks. I wonder what the food is like,
the ship is Polish..

Stefan Batory? I'm going aboard one of those to get to Europe in the
next few years - I hope.
I don't fly either. Can pick the ship up close to home, travel part
of my old merchant marine route through the lakes, then right across
the pond.
BTW, one of the Cunard Queens - can't remember if it's the Mary -
isn't bad on price, but you have to pick it up on the east coast.
Polish food is mostly meat and potatoes based. If the cook is good,
it'll be good. As long as you're not a vegan.

Queen Mary. Rode it from Hamburg to Brooklyn, via Southhampton.
I think they are getting 700 or so for two to a room. The room service
burger is not as good as Holland-America. The latter have a bar
directly above the wheelhouse, with three glass walls. A hundred a
day. Compare touring by car. Hundred a day for room, seventy five to a
hundred for gas, twenty to thirty for food. Took the train from NYC to
Iowa. Spotted several steam locomotives, sitting derelict in yards.

Casady

Ride to hell
 

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:15:49 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 13, 9:45 am, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:11:10 -0400, "Don White"

wrote:
I'm sure the pilot had perfect visibility in the rain, fog and snow,
he was just scared....right, dummy?

The pilot is the necessary backup for the autopilot, which can land
the plane, and which does not use visible light and does not need
visibility. Rain and fog do not affect it. The pilot might have taken
the risk had there been a medical emergency or something.

Casady

An autopilot system can't make decisions based on deteriorating
weather conditions. A pilot can, and therefore did.

What makes you think it can't, for that matter. Computers can beat
nearly anyone at chess, and have been able to for a long time.

As far back as 1947 an autopilot on a DC-3 crossed the Atlantic and
landed with a pilot watching, hands off. The radio glide slope
instrument had been invented by then. There is even a book about it.

You missed the part about the autopilot being immune to weather. If
you trust the autopilot, there is no decision to make, you land every
time. They don't trust the autopilot. which is what I said. Pilots are
not failure proof either. They occasionally die on the job. That is
one of the reasons there are two. The Shuttle is totally unlandable
without the computer, so they have four of them. Two can fail in
succession and be outvoted. I happen to hold, since the seventies, a
commercial license with an instrument rating, and I can assure you
that neither approaches nor landings have to be perfect.

Casady

The reason they do not allow the autopilot to land all the way to touchdown
is because of the ILS system. You cannot always trust it is in perfect
alignment. It can be a little off, but not far enough to trigger the
alarms. Maybe now, but when I was an ILS guy in the airforce, you could
still be off a tiny bit.

Ride to hell
 

"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:15:49 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 13, 9:45 am, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:11:10 -0400, "Don White"

wrote:
I'm sure the pilot had perfect visibility in the rain, fog and snow,
he was just scared....right, dummy?

The pilot is the necessary backup for the autopilot, which can land
the plane, and which does not use visible light and does not need
visibility. Rain and fog do not affect it. The pilot might have taken
the risk had there been a medical emergency or something.

Casady

An autopilot system can't make decisions based on deteriorating
weather conditions. A pilot can, and therefore did.

What makes you think it can't, for that matter. Computers can beat
nearly anyone at chess, and have been able to for a long time.

As far back as 1947 an autopilot on a DC-3 crossed the Atlantic and
landed with a pilot watching, hands off. The radio glide slope
instrument had been invented by then. There is even a book about it.

You missed the part about the autopilot being immune to weather. If
you trust the autopilot, there is no decision to make, you land every
time. They don't trust the autopilot. which is what I said. Pilots are
not failure proof either. They occasionally die on the job. That is
one of the reasons there are two. The Shuttle is totally unlandable
without the computer, so they have four of them. Two can fail in
succession and be outvoted. I happen to hold, since the seventies, a
commercial license with an instrument rating, and I can assure you
that neither approaches nor landings have to be perfect.

Casady

The reason they do not allow the autopilot to land all the way to
touchdown is because of the ILS system. You cannot always trust it is in
perfect alignment. It can be a little off, but not far enough to trigger
the alarms. Maybe now, but when I was an ILS guy in the airforce, you
could still be off a tiny bit.


Actually Bill, if the plane (with qualified crew), and the airport are
equipped properly, the autopilot can complete a fully automated landing all
the way thru roll-out. It's called a CAT-III C approach, and of many
reports I've heard, is smoother than many pilot's landings. SFO is capable
of handling such approaches. Maybe scary, but true.

--Mike

Ride to hell
 

"Mike" wrote in message
...

"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:15:49 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 13, 9:45 am, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:11:10 -0400, "Don White"

wrote:
I'm sure the pilot had perfect visibility in the rain, fog and snow,
he was just scared....right, dummy?

The pilot is the necessary backup for the autopilot, which can land
the plane, and which does not use visible light and does not need
visibility. Rain and fog do not affect it. The pilot might have taken
the risk had there been a medical emergency or something.

Casady

An autopilot system can't make decisions based on deteriorating
weather conditions. A pilot can, and therefore did.

What makes you think it can't, for that matter. Computers can beat
nearly anyone at chess, and have been able to for a long time.

As far back as 1947 an autopilot on a DC-3 crossed the Atlantic and
landed with a pilot watching, hands off. The radio glide slope
instrument had been invented by then. There is even a book about it.

You missed the part about the autopilot being immune to weather. If
you trust the autopilot, there is no decision to make, you land every
time. They don't trust the autopilot. which is what I said. Pilots are
not failure proof either. They occasionally die on the job. That is
one of the reasons there are two. The Shuttle is totally unlandable
without the computer, so they have four of them. Two can fail in
succession and be outvoted. I happen to hold, since the seventies, a
commercial license with an instrument rating, and I can assure you
that neither approaches nor landings have to be perfect.

Casady

The reason they do not allow the autopilot to land all the way to
touchdown is because of the ILS system. You cannot always trust it is in
perfect alignment. It can be a little off, but not far enough to trigger
the alarms. Maybe now, but when I was an ILS guy in the airforce, you
could still be off a tiny bit.


Actually Bill, if the plane (with qualified crew), and the airport are
equipped properly, the autopilot can complete a fully automated landing
all the way thru roll-out. It's called a CAT-III C approach, and of many
reports I've heard, is smoother than many pilot's landings. SFO is capable
of handling such approaches. Maybe scary, but true.

--Mike


But I got out in 1971, so things have definitely changed technology wise.

Ride to hell
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...

"Mike" wrote in message
...

"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:15:49 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 13, 9:45 am, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:11:10 -0400, "Don White"

wrote:
I'm sure the pilot had perfect visibility in the rain, fog and snow,
he was just scared....right, dummy?

The pilot is the necessary backup for the autopilot, which can land
the plane, and which does not use visible light and does not need
visibility. Rain and fog do not affect it. The pilot might have taken
the risk had there been a medical emergency or something.

Casady

An autopilot system can't make decisions based on deteriorating
weather conditions. A pilot can, and therefore did.

What makes you think it can't, for that matter. Computers can beat
nearly anyone at chess, and have been able to for a long time.

As far back as 1947 an autopilot on a DC-3 crossed the Atlantic and
landed with a pilot watching, hands off. The radio glide slope
instrument had been invented by then. There is even a book about it.

You missed the part about the autopilot being immune to weather. If
you trust the autopilot, there is no decision to make, you land every
time. They don't trust the autopilot. which is what I said. Pilots are
not failure proof either. They occasionally die on the job. That is
one of the reasons there are two. The Shuttle is totally unlandable
without the computer, so they have four of them. Two can fail in
succession and be outvoted. I happen to hold, since the seventies, a
commercial license with an instrument rating, and I can assure you
that neither approaches nor landings have to be perfect.

Casady

The reason they do not allow the autopilot to land all the way to
touchdown is because of the ILS system. You cannot always trust it is
in perfect alignment. It can be a little off, but not far enough to
trigger the alarms. Maybe now, but when I was an ILS guy in the
airforce, you could still be off a tiny bit.


Actually Bill, if the plane (with qualified crew), and the airport are
equipped properly, the autopilot can complete a fully automated landing
all the way thru roll-out. It's called a CAT-III C approach, and of many
reports I've heard, is smoother than many pilot's landings. SFO is
capable of handling such approaches. Maybe scary, but true.

--Mike


But I got out in 1971, so things have definitely changed technology wise.


LOL! OK, it's safe to say that approach was not available in 1971.

--Mike

Ride to hell
 

Don White wrote:
Just got back from the airport.
My BVI buddy was on a flight out of Washington that was scheduled to arrive
Halifax at 2108 hrs.
When I started out, I had to wipe a skim of ice from the windows...a bad
sign. Talk about pea soup fog......
I was travelling at 80km and sometimes dipping down to 70 and even 60km.
Big trucks whipping by kicking up crap all over my windshield. My eyesight
is getting bad at night in the best conditions, let alone like this.
Oh yeah..that wimpy 'merican pilot circled our airport a few times and then
ran back toHartford, Connecticut.
Now I'll have to go back out tomorrow. If his plane comes in at night, I'll
tell him to jump the airport bus and I'll meet him at a downtown hotel.
Safer for all concerned.



So you are dumb *and* a pussy. Go figure...