Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Jeez what's that do to the confidence of the pilot if the computer is calling him a retard right before touchdown. I had an ex-girlfriend like that, but she called me that when I was parallel parking, same thing. Retard! Retard! you hit the curb again.>> ^CrushBug:

>> ^mrsid:
What a retard!

I didn't get that until right at the end of the video

>> ^Quboid:

My brother, a hobby pilot, used to do landings like this time after time in MS Flight Simulator X. They've good for testing your navigation skills and using the instruments. I tried a few too, I found VFR flying in real to be much easier than IFR in FSX.


That is not unlike real life. Looking out of window at 20k at 400 miles per hour isn't exactly telling at times, even without cloud cover. Only on an approach you have done dozens of times in the same conditions will the "look" of a particular landing be helpful. This isn't unlike most areas of life, things you don't do often, how they look isn't very useful, now a checklist...that is useful no matter how many times! This is why all aspects of planes and checklist based. For any given day you might be on several different planes on a large variety of different airports. That isn't always the case, many times they get similar kinds of routes over and over with the same equipment, but that does change from time to time.

Your video, Airbus A320 Low Visibility Landing in Zürich., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^mrsid:

What a retard!


I didn't get that until right at the end of the video

Tags for this video have been changed from 'airbus, a330, fly, hover, headwind, airspeed vs groundspeed' to 'airbus, a330, fly, hover, headwind, airspeed vs groundspeed, relative wind' - edited by calvados

Tags for this video have been changed from 'airbus, a330, fly, hover' to 'airbus, a330, fly, hover, headwind, airspeed vs groundspeed' - edited by calvados

brave pilot, flying on the edge of stall like this. and there's no ejection seats in an airbus ...

You mean "Surely no one was standing up in there."

I was standing at the cargo bin door of a SAAB once, getting ready to hop in when a CRJ-200's wing clipped the SAAB's wing and rocked it pretty good. I've seen incidents like in this video from aircraft being pushed back but, never from a taxiing aircraft and never that severe.

If you look to the lower right you see a glowing orb kind of shape moving towards the CRJ 7 and when the aircraft starts swinging around you see it hopping back, that's the marshaller's vest glowing. I'm curious as to who takes a hit for this, airport operations or the marshallers for not parking the CRJ 7 as soon as it got there... or the pilot of the airbus for just charging on through because some pilots are assholes like that.

>> ^Hybrid:

Only Leslie Nielsen was.>> ^Payback:
That is some serious acceleration to the cockpit of the commuter plane. I hope no one was standing up in there.

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
Regarding the points you raise. The companies you mentioned are multinationals, focus on technology and R&D and are in markets that have high costs to entry (being it market capitalization, research or technology). For example Boeing's only other competitor is Airbus and they fulfill demand orders on a international scale. I think overall they constitute a small percentage of US economy because their operations are so spread around the world, problems in the US economy would affect these firms very little.

It's a bit ironic that you picked Boeing as the exemplar. I live (part time) in Huntington Beach, CA, where Boeing has a substantial presence. A couple of weeks ago, they laid off about 50 workers in this city of about 200k. But that also results in the loss of jobs in every single company that serves as a local supplier to them (tens of companies, hundreds more jobs). More to the point, I named a whole bunch of large, easily recognizable companies that make stuff, as opposed to providing services, just to point out that manufacturing is alive and well in the U.S. It's a well propagated myth that the U.S. doesn't do manufacturing anymore, which Jake bought right into. Trust me, I've lived in a half dozen cities across the U.S. over the last decade, and every single one of them had a substantial manufacturing base. It's certainly true that the U.S. economy has been shifting away from making stuff over the last 50 years, but it's still the case that most cities and towns in the U.S. are completely dependent on their local manufacturing base.


Agriculture is a thorny issue

The thorniest. Twenty thousand years ago when humans first started domesticating plants, that's what they fought over. And we still do. The only thing we fight over more now is decayed plants.

since much of it both in the US and EU is sustained via massive subsidization and are controlled by large firms which enjoy massive economies of scale. Their lobbying towards the US government means they have favorable market conditions in the states, they price their products higher then the world market and the US consumer ends up paying for that.

But that doesn't change the fact that hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people in the U.S. are employed in the agricultural business. Again, I was just using it as an example of producing stuff. Perhaps this points out a fundamental flaw of using GDP as a measure of a country's economic strength.

Many of the trade disagreements brought up in the WTO by 1st world nations focus on suppressing 3rd world agricultural markets because the western world cannot compete on price and cost.

Really? I was under the impression it was more the other way around, i.e., the third world nations were begging the west to stop their subsidies and "level the growing field".

It's simply cheaper to produce agriculture in the 3rd world. Globalization must be pushed to happened in this sector strongly as right now it penalizes the consumers, sustains an inefficient producer (when looked globally) and suppresses growth in the third world which wholly depends on Agriculture.

That I just have to disagree with. It is only because of political realities and labor costs, not farming practices or technology (i.e., true efficiencies). There is no way that it is more efficient to grow corn in Zambia than it is in Iowa.


This is why you have all those "Free Trade" products being sold all over the place, like coffee beans for example. I would love to see a globalization effort on behalf of large US manufacturers through foreign direct investment in third world economies.

Woah - now you're scaring me. That sounds like multinationals moving into local areas to exploit local resources - fresh water access, etc. I'm pretty sure I know you well enough to know that's not what you mean. But dig deeper - you are suggesting that profit motivated companies would somehow be interested in the welfare of the residents of the local areas in which they operate. Ultimately, that's how a company should be run, but how many companies do you know of that have that kind of long term vision. (This is really worthy of another conversation on the ethics and ultimate sustainability of commerce. Too much to handle here.)

I totally agree on personal debt problems, there is too much runaway consumerism while the middle class has been diminishing, you have too many falling down in the lower classes and not many coming into the middle class. Now republican usually state that tax cuts would elevate this but I disagree, there is very little financial advice and a general air get rich quick behavior in the US, especially leverage and bombardment of the consumer through what seem like seductive credit card offers that have huge monthly payment penalties and interest rate increases. I mean you can get a credit card from almost anyone now in the US. There is a lot of predatory lending behavior in the credit card industry and not enough good information on the topic. I think some sort regulation and institutions that normalize run away debt is in order.

I disagree with you on some of this, and completely agree otherwise. Rampant consumerism is not the problem. Nor is even ridiculously available credit (at least until recently) the problem. It really is an issue of education. As you say, most people in the U.S. (and I think probably most people around the world) don't understand the first thing about finances. And I'm not just talking about average joe. I wasn't fooling around when I said on Joe's blog that I have been privileged to know some of the smartest people on the planet. I really have - and a few of them could barely balance a checkbook. Seriously. I know that sounds absurd, but it's true. I have twice personally "bailed out" close friends. I doubt it was complete ignorance, but there was certainly a lack of understanding of just how much it would cost to run up large amounts of debt.



But again there are so many layers and layers of complexity with any of these topics and some time your viewpoint really depends on your economic background and beliefs, I am a strong believer in world trade and globalization. I do admit there are lots of growing pains and problems in its implementation. It's easy to say the US economy needs to focus more on services and R&D but its not possible. I remember one woman I debated about agricultural markets got offended when I said that farmers in Canada are inefficient and are holding back agricultural market development in the developing world.

No doubt the layers of complexity are lost many folks. It does almost require someone who is independently wealthy that can spend a lifetime studying these topics to really get a handle on it. But, of course, if you are one of those people, you are instantly labeled an elite, out-of-touch, ivory tower geek. Can't win for losing, eh?

Of course you're right that true and fair globalization (as opposed to exploitation) is the best solution. How much luck have you had convincing your neighbors? I haven't had much.

Thanks Jonny.

Regarding the points you raise. The companies you mentioned are multinationals, focus on technology and R&D and are in markets that have high costs to entry (being it market capitalization, research or technology). For example Boeing's only other competitor is Airbus and they fulfill demand orders on a international scale. I think overall they constitute a small percentage of US economy because their operations are so spread around the world, problems in the US economy would affect these firms very little.

Agriculture is a thorny issue, since much of it both in the US and EU is sustained via massive subsidization and are controlled by large firms which enjoy massive economies of scale. Their lobbying towards the US government means they have favorable market conditions in the states, they price their products higher then the world market and the US consumer ends up paying for that.

Many of the trade disagreements brought up in the WTO by 1st world nations focus on suppressing 3rd world agricultural markets because the western world cannot compete on price and cost. It's simply cheaper to produce agriculture in the 3rd world. Globalization must be pushed to happened in this sector strongly as right now it penalizes the consumers, sustains an inefficient producer (when looked globally) and suppresses growth in the third world which wholly depends on Agriculture. This is why you have all those "Free Trade" products being sold all over the place, like coffee beans for example. I would love to see a globalization effort on behalf of large US manufacturers through foreign direct investment in third world economies.

I totally agree on personal debt problems, there is too much runaway consumerism while the middle class has been diminishing, you have too many falling down in the lower classes and not many coming into the middle class. Now republican usually state that tax cuts would elevate this but I disagree, there is very little financial advice and a general air get rich quick behavior in the US, especially leverage and bombardment of the consumer through what seem like seductive credit card offers that have huge monthly payment penalties and interest rate increases. I mean you can get a credit card from almost anyone now in the US. There is a lot of predatory lending behavior in the credit card industry and not enough good information on the topic. I think some sort regulation and institutions that normalize run away debt is in order.

But again there are so many layers and layers of complexity with any of these topics and some time your viewpoint really depends on your economic background and beliefs, I am a strong believer in world trade and globalization. I do admit there are lots of growing pains and problems in its implementation. It's easy to say the US economy needs to focus more on services and R&D but its not possible. I remember one woman I debated about agricultural markets got offended when I said that farmers in Canada are inefficient and are holding back agricultural market development in the developing world.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
the US economy has become ...

Wow, very nice. I was writing a response to Jake's comment along much the same lines, but it was not nearly as coherent or well informed. Thanks. I'm glad I abandoned my response, but I think there are a couple of things you left out.

Airbus? Or airboat! Ahahahaha... sad, I know. Awesome landing though.

Tags for this video have been changed from '1549, Airbus, cockpit view, hudson, river' to '1549, Airbus, cockpit view, hudson, river, US, Airways, crash, BBC, News' - edited by Trancecoach

Tags for this video have been changed from 'plane crash, Hudson River, exposure, is it terrorism' to 'jet, plane, crash, Hudson River, exposure, double, bird strike, airbus, A320, all, survive' - edited by Krupo

*nochannel this has nothing to do with world affairs or terror. *News, *Travel & *Happy

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090115.wplane0115/BNStory/International

Idiot can't identify the airbus... can't blame him I guess... unless he tried to count the # of windows to estimate its size. Meh. Reuters called it a small plane with "more than a dozen passengers" in their first report too.

I called happy on it, obviously, because everyone survived.

Why the Boeing tag? The aircraft involved was an *airbus a300.