"gastrointestinal issues were the runaway leader."
Shirley, you mean the runway leader?
Australia's Transport Safety Bureau has published a study analysing incidents that incapacitated pilots in flight and found that gastrointestinal issues were the runaway leader. The study only covers Australian incidents between 2010 and 2014, producing a sample size of 113 incidents at a rate of one each 34,000 commercial …
One of the side-effects of a broad spectrum allergy to half of the plant kingdom is that I now carry my food and do not regret it.
You are always better off to throw a slice of serrano, parma, "flie elena" or similar grade ham which will not go bad even for 10 days in tropic heat, some vacuum packed fully matured cheese and a bag of fruit.
One of the side-effects of a broad spectrum allergy to half of the plant kingdom....
I think this is a regional genetic abnormality originating in Liverpool, still prevalent there, but now quite widespread in other regions. The sufferers are unable to eat any green vegetables, root vegetables or salad. Luckily all forms of fried edible tubers are readily tolerated, along with products based on the residues of beta vulgaris, and those from processed barley and hops, so long as none of the toxic vitamins or fibre remain.
I think he means the dish 'Scouse' which has a bit of beetroot in it.
Actually I was referring to sugar beet, and all the marvellous confections that can be made with sugar. I could have been more precise, but that would have disturbed the carefully crafted comic balance of the original post.
Imagine how rich I'd be, and how successful my employer's business if I put this much care into my day job!
ISTR reading that if you have landed a big jet a good few times in a flight sim you are likely to be able to land one for real (wiith assistance from the control tower) if it ever becomes necessary. There are cases of non-pilots being talked down successfully even without any sim experience.
However, I am surprised that they don't give cabin staff a few hours in the real flight training simulator and a refresher every couple of years. Or do they (and impose secrecy for PR reasons)?
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
However, I am surprised that they don't give cabin staff a few hours in the real flight training simulator and a refresher every couple of years. Or do they (and impose secrecy for PR reasons)?
They don't because it's highly unlikely that cabin crew would be able to land it safely even after practice in the simulator. You may (with enough study) be able to coax an autoland out of the thing, but since an autoland requires a lot of ducks all lined up in exactly the right order to work anyway, that's a gamble at best.
PC flight simulators bear absolutely no resemblance to the real thing, particularly the landing - in fact, even £30,000,000 full flight simulators are noticeably different to land than the aircraft itself.
My airline allows us to eat the same meals because they concluded that if we're going to get the shits it's highly unlikely to be from the food on board.
"They don't because it's highly unlikely that cabin crew would be able to land it safely even after practice in the simulator."
"Highly unlikely" is still an improvement over certain death. It's why we distinguish between Kamikaze attacks in WW2 and Swordfish attacks, which were very nearly, but not quite, suicidal. (In the Scharnhorst/Gneisenau attack all 6 aircraft were lost and 13 out of 18 crew killed - they did no damage at all to the ships.)
"However, I am surprised that they don't give cabin staff a few hours in the real flight training simulator and a refresher every couple of years. Or do they"
Many airlines do. That said, those staff tend to crash in the simulators due to lack of practice.
Many pilots are concerned about this. On most airliners, cabin air is obtained by bleeding air from the engines, which are lubricated using some fairly dangerous chemicals. If seals aren't quite as tight as they should be it's possible for the air to be contaminated. Anecdotally, some aircraft types are worse than others.
There's no definitive evidence for this, and much possibility for psychosomatic symptoms, but problems have been reported numerous times (as this report demonstrates). The new Boeing Dreamliners use as a USP the fact that they don't produce cabin air from the engines, getting it directly from the outside atmosphere (and at somewhat higher internal pressure, too).
There's no definitive evidence for this
I thought it was well-documented that engine faults have led to dangerously contaminated cabin air, leading to flight crew donning oxygen masks and making emergency landings. ISTR that what pilots are concerned about (without definitive evidence) is that lifetime exposure to low "normal, safe" levels of these chemicals might be dangerously cumulative. They are organophosphates, an overall nasty group of chemicals.
This post has been deleted by its author
You'd have to differentiate the types of cancer first in order to be able to say anything substatial on the matter. Hint: sunbathing will increase the risk of skin cancer. Also, nowadays flight crews don't get that much free time between flights anymore.
Oh, and I'd like the opportunity to mention this: Liquidators (sorry about the source, sometimes it's just too convenient)
Anecdotally, some aircraft types are worse than others.
The BAe 146 and its derivatives are colloquially known as the "Flying gaschamber". Nothing anecdotal about it, there is a design reason. The engines on that aircraft are actually turboshafts designed for helicopters, modified to run as aircraft turbofans. The engine runs at revolutions that are too high for a high-bypass fan, so there's a reduction gearbox at the front (leading to that odd, asymmetric appearance to the engine nacelles). The gearbox lubricant is highly toxic and, if and when the gearbox leaks, a mist of fluid is propelled into the air system by the engine fan.
You are not wrong teecee. I think they stopped producing them in 2002 or so, being the most successful British aircraft.
Anyways, the final report on the air quality is here
http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/completed_inquiries/1999-02/bae/report/report.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjy9fCJ7Y3LAhVG1I4KHReeAwkQFggmMAk&usg=AFQjCNFHdrPpgF_KNbB7LFpyPQy7IEkVoQ
Yes a case of where the TCP they use is not the smelly but harmless thing you dab on grazes but an organophosphate that should require a pressurised hazmat suit. Pity, as the 146 is a relatively nice plane otherwise. I chose not to fly on them anymore in the early 1990's