Not necessarily directly related to politics, but wanted to share this one and it didn't fit general.

Yesterday one of their weather people pointed on a map showing where the AirAsia jet disappeared, calling the location the Java Sea but was actually pointing far north of there at the South China Sea off Vietnam.  Since the on-air people can't actually see the display it was probably an error by someone off camera.

Oh, I forgot..all the women there are blonde. But it's Fox so their thinking is that if ain't American and we didn't think of it then it's wrong.

...into a musical. Or maybe the Belarus Free Theater could do something with it.

it is clear to anyone not infected with Foxinoia that the assertion that the conversion "could" have played a role in the crash was the FAA officials, not the lady from Fox News.  

"The Gimli Glider"

they were discussing a plane crash that killed over 150 people. Is that what you find funny?

and he is a regular  spoutiing stupid..

...There was a CHAIN of events, not the least of which was an inoperative fuel-quantity indicating system.  Since you obviously doesn't understand what that means, I'll tell you - the friggin' gas gauge didn't work.  The liter/gallon mistake involved topping off, not filling up.

You really had to dig for ONE 30-year old example that was not even the main cause of the crash.  Gee, who feels stupid now?

to the question at hand, could confusion involving metric vs. Imperial measurement systems contribute to aviation problems? Your only defense of my example is the age? Nice try but there are plenty of things that old that are still in play today, things other than just the age of this particular aircraft serial number.  

In your assessment on the cause of the Gimli Glider incident. There was no crash involved. The Boeing landed dead stick on the closed runway of the former Gimli RCAF Base, which was then being used as a race track for cars. The aircraft sustained damage, but was repaired, and flew out under it's own power.

The "friggin' gas gauge" was working just fine. Exactly as the "fuel quantity indicator" was designed to work. However, the pilots were under the impression that it indicated the quantity in gallons, when in fact, the indicated quantity was in liters. Thinking they had the correct fuel uplift in gallons, they departed. Enroute, the actual quantity, being in liters, was insufficient to continue to their destination. Hence, they had a double engine flameout due to fuel, (Jet A fuel), starvation. Being within gliding distance of Gimli, they declared an emergency, and set the jet down on the race track.

There is a RAT, (ram air turbine), that automatically extends from the fuselage of the jet to provide approximately 30 minutes of hydraulic and electrical power to the aircraft when the engines are no longer operative. This allows the pilots to have flight control responses, and emergency radio operations.

Same thing when the Airbus ditched into the Hudson when both engines failed due to bird strike damage. The RAT extended, and they retained control. If not for that, no one would have survived in either incident.

Hope this helps your assessment of the correct actions. Put in simple English, the two pilots fucked up, not the plane.

...as in "an inoperative fuel-quantity indicating system."  Where in ed's link do you see that the friggin' gas gauge was working "just fine" as you say.

...brought down planes yet you provided only one example, from 1983.  I believe the Wright flight was in 1903.

When I pointed out the age of the mishap, you scrounged around but all you could find was an error involving a SPACECRAFT, not an airplane.  You said: "Do you really need more examples? Fool."  Yes, this Fool needs more examples - in 111 years of aviation, you've provided exactly one involving an airplane.  Not really a pattern is it?

Korean Air in 1999. The air crew became confused about their altitude directive in meters vs. feet. Thinking they were too high, they began a steep descent from which they did not recover.

My objective here was not to defend a FOX News person (even though the OP twisted her words). My point was to show how the criticism was so wrong. That something as simple as human error regarding metric system confusion can prove deadly. Laughable concern according to so many smart posters here (including yourself) although I think all the poster's reactions are more of a knee jerk desire to knock FOX rather than actually think things through. After your age criticism was shown to be a non-starter you shift to an attempt to point out a mishap only happened once. Once is all it takes to be wrong. Then unmanned flight doesn't meet your requirements for further proof. Never mind it demonstrates that even large groups of really smart people can be fooled by measurement system errors.  

Sharpton may be the worst person in the media..

If you must ask, of course I know what "inoperative" means. Also, where did I find that the "friggin' gas gauge was working just fine"? It is well stated in the FAA/NTSB investigation report, that the pilots lack of understanding the fuel quantity system, and their negligence in correctly fueling the required amount of Jet A was the cause of the mishap. Not an inoperative fuel quantity system, which was working just fine.

In addition, each commercial jet aircraft has an MEL, (minimum equipment list), on board for that specific aircraft, at all times. The MEL lists every item that can be inoperative, and the flight can continue with it inoperative. It also lists the time duration it can remain inop, and what corrective action must be taken, after that time period expires.  If an individual fuel quantity gage is inoperative, the fuel quantity in that particular fuel tank is required to be measured mechanically, by hand, using a calibrated device to 'dip' the tank. No, repeat, NO commercial aircraft is considered airworthy if the entire fuel quantity system is inoperative. This was not the case for the Gimli Glider.

The last jet I flew before retiring was the Douglas DC-8, which is a very large, 4 engine commercial transport aircraft. The DC-8-63 model has 10 fuel tanks. Only one fuel quantity indicator is allowed to be inop, and the tank measuring procedure must be accomplished for that tank. The airline maintenance department has 48 hours to affect repairs, according to the MEL, after the discrepancy is discovered. The MEL is an FAA approved document, not just something the airline dreams up.  

I read ed2000's link. You should know that the media does not have a fucking clue about what transpires in the aviation world. e.g. those idiots are continually referring to the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder, as the "black box". Anyone not color blind can see the DFR/CVR are painted international orange so as the be easier to find in the wreckage. Good luck if they were painted black.

I've been flying for 50+ years, so I know a bit about it. If you want to get into a pissing contest on this subject, fine by me.....piss away.


Btw, 'gauge' is the word used for the measurement and size of electrical wire, shotgun barrel sizes, and metal cables. 'Gage' is the proper nomenclature for what is used in the fuel quantity system.

What are the chances that pilots for some of these Asian companies are "under trained"? The media reports I've seen talk about very high growth rates in Asian aviation but do not address the pilot training or maintenance regulations.

Hey Ed. I know many pilots that have been furloughed from American companies that are now ex-pats for foreign carriers. From what they say, the chances are 100% that the Asian carriers' training programs are not up to the FAA standards. There are some foreign airlines that are not allowed to fly in FAA controlled airspace for that reason.

Another odd example is the DC-8 that I flew previously. Douglas built it for a 3 man crew, Captain, first officer, and flight engineer. Air Canada, in their quest to cut costs, eliminated the flight engineer position. They installed seat track extensions for the FO to slide back to the FE panel and work it when needed. The FAA would not let any of those jets enter US airspace, as they were now considered 'experimental' category. My company actually bought 3 of them from Air Canad, but refitted the FE position before flying them to the USA. They were great planes.

Btw, other than the Concorde and the Russian SST, the DC-8 is the only other commercial jet to break the sound barrier. They're tough old birds, lol. 50+ years old, and still flying freight around the globe. Lets see if any of the current crop of Boeing plastic jets last that long. I'm just a bit prejudiced, lol. The old adage is, "Airbus builds computers with wings, Boeing builds airplanes, Douglas built character".