Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[05omegav6]

have you not got a wheel chair to go and push ffs

Nope... we play with proper toys outside

[Kevin Wood]

have you not got a wheel chair to go and push ffs

Nope... we play with proper toys outside

[05omegav6]

Utter brilliance

You couldn't make that up...
1. Take one empty, brand new A340-600 for a final predelivery test.
2. Taxi across airfield to face a 6 m wall 100m and apply the parking brake.
3. Wind all four Rolls Royce Trents up to take off power without setting the flaps for take off.
4. Ignore the computer warning telling you that the aircraft isn't configured for take off.
5. Get so fed up with said warning that you pull the ground proximity warning breaker to trick the aircraft into thinking it's actually hovering.
6. Realise a little too late that step 5 releases the brakes automatically so that you don't land with the wheels locked.
7. Wake up unemployed in hospital a day later.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=25d_1279544545

[Andy B]

Utter brilliance

You couldn't make that up...
1. Take one empty, brand new A340-600 for a final predelivery test.
2. Taxi across airfield to face a 6 m wall 100m and apply the parking brake.
3. Wind all four Rolls Royce Trents up to take off power without setting the flaps for take off.
4. Ignore the computer warning telling you that the aircraft isn't configured for take off.
5. Get so fed up with said warning that you pull the ground proximity warning breaker to trick the aircraft into thinking it's actually hovering.
6. Realise a little too late that step 5 releases the brakes automatically so that you don't land with the wheels locked.
7. Wake up unemployed in hospital a day later.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=25d_1279544545

Were you a civvy pilot in a previous life? 

[dbug]

Utter brilliance

You couldn't make that up...
1. Take one empty, brand new A340-600 for a final predelivery test.
2. Taxi across airfield to face a 6 m wall 100m and apply the parking brake.
3. Wind all four Rolls Royce Trents up to take off power without setting the flaps for take off.
4. Ignore the computer warning telling you that the aircraft isn't configured for take off.
5. Get so fed up with said warning that you pull the ground proximity warning breaker to trick the aircraft into thinking it's actually hovering.
6. Realise a little too late that step 5 releases the brakes automatically so that you don't land with the wheels locked.
7. Wake up unemployed in hospital a day later.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=25d_1279544545

Were you a civvy pilot in a previous life? 

No an Air Accident Investigator who drove a taxi 

[Viral_Jim]

Utter brilliance

You couldn't make that up...
1. Take one empty, brand new A340-600 for a final predelivery test.
2. Taxi across airfield to face a 6 m wall 100m and apply the parking brake.
3. Wind all four Rolls Royce Trents up to take off power without setting the flaps for take off.
4. Ignore the computer warning telling you that the aircraft isn't configured for take off.
5. Get so fed up with said warning that you pull the ground proximity warning breaker to trick the aircraft into thinking it's actually hovering.
6. Realise a little too late that step 5 releases the brakes automatically so that you don't land with the wheels locked.
7. Wake up unemployed in hospital a day later.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=25d_1279544545

Were you a civvy pilot in a previous life? 

No an Air Accident Investigator who drove a taxi 

Something of an inaccurate account of the incident. Which was actually Airbus' fuŁkup. Story designed to play into the anti Muslim stereotypes, in this case by way of "weren't the Arab crew dumb" type story.

A more accurate description of events is below. Including a translation of the original air crash investigation report.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/etihad.asp

[05omegav6]

Net result is the same

And report you linked to begins word for word identically...

Fact 1. Several people screwed up.
Fact 2. Parking brake was released. How is irrelevant as the aircraft was already moving and both versions would release the parking brake.
Fact 3. Not one person in the cockpit had the sense to throttle back.

 

Certainly a quick and effective way of spending $200,000,000.

[Viral_Jim]

Net result is the same

Only in as much as a plane gets totalled. The Who, the why and the how of the incident are  wrong. Specifically, the live leak article MADE UP a number of aspects of the "incident". Namely.

a report released by French investigators in December 2008 (translated into English here) did not identify the cause of the crash to be ADAT technicians who were unfamiliar with the aircraft and overrode a vital safety feature:

And report you linked to begins word for word identically...

Yes, because Snooes articles quote the BS version first, followed by a more factual account.   

Sure, in the end it's a good waste of $200m but linking to a made up article which has clear racist overtones is a bit too Britain First for my taste.

[05omegav6]

Only linked to it as a reference to the incident rather than for any sociopolitical innuendo

Picture suggested an overrun, so a witty comment about Airbus engineers confusing metres with feet might have been apt, but would have been no more technically accurate...

Anywho, about this Astra...

[Broomies Mate]

The 1.4T Astra is rubbish.  It moves ok 'on song' but for the usual in-town driving, it's pathetic.  On the Motorway, it's revving it's gonads off at 70.... get to usual motorway speeds and it's unbelievably noisy.

So much so, my mucker traded his 1.4T for a 2.0CDTI after about 4 months of ownership.

(Both brand new cars)

[Viral_Jim]

Anywho, about this Astra...

Looks ok, think I prefer the previous model. However, since the last astra I owned was an R plate 1.4i sh!tbox, I'm probably a bit out of touch on this one.   

[Diamond Black Geezer]

Oooh!! the 1.4 combined with the slushbox, by 'eck they went like a glacier with a hangover!

[tunnie]

Not sure I'd want to own a 1.4T, in something fairly heavy that Turbo will be working over-time.

I'd have concerns on the long term reliability of something so highly strung, rather than a say a 1.8 petrol which has to work less hard and no turbo to worry about.

[Diamond Black Geezer]

That's my argument with running my 2.5 V6... ok, so compared with say my mate's 1.4 Fiesta round town clearly the winner on mpg is the blue oval, however, load up the two cars, take them from a run on the motorway, factor in the extra revs the little car has to do to keep up with modern traffic etc... my car's had a very recent service, running (relatively)very good, his is getting tired, at half the mileage, and in real terms the mpg difference isn't that much.

A larger, unstressed engine vs a smaller 'more economical' engine, but being ragged off its engine mounts all day every day, and the larger engine wins out for me every time 

[Marks DTM Calib]

Not sure I'd want to own a 1.4T, in something fairly heavy that Turbo will be working over-time.

I'd have concerns on the long term reliability of something so highly strung, rather than a say a 1.8 petrol which has to work less hard and no turbo to worry about.

Shows what little you know about Turbos 

It wont be working any harder than one on a V6, its delivering air to a set pressure, period.

The 1.4T is cracking engine with 140bhp and over boost, shifts these little cars along really well (New Astra is a few hundred kilos lighter than the J, god knows what was wrong with the one Broomies Mate mentions, must have been a lower output derivative with a 5 speed).

To put it into perspective, the 1.4T's I have driven were all doing less rpm at 70 than a 3.0 Omega would be doing in top.