One wouldn't think this could be so with Star AllianceRegarding that Spanair flight 5022, which crashed on takeoff in August:
I hope it is not mischievous or misleading to suggest this as a possible cause:
From 2002
The parts were found in Sicilia:
It is unclear why the wing flaps failed to deploy, but the error was compounded by the failure of the cockpit alert system, which should have sounded a warning to the pilots.
I hope it is not mischievous or misleading to suggest this as a possible cause:
From 2002
Yesterday it emerged that the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued a warning to 167 countries over the potential danger caused by the scam ... The Rome daily Il Messaggero yesterday published a list of five air accidents that it said investigators suspected could have been caused by faulty spare parts. They included the crash of an ATI ATR 42 near Milan in October 1987, a Dornier 328 operated by Minerva Airlines which overshot the runway in Genoa in February 1999, and the crash of a Valujet DC 9 in southern Florida in May 1996.
The parts were found in Sicilia:
"[They] were in an appalling state," said Aniello Albano, of the Sardinian finance police. "The workshops carried out cosmetic operations on them in order to defraud the airlines."
Some other parts, the result of the cannibalisation of six Alitalia Airbus A300s by the Panaviation company, were about to be sent to the US where they were to be offered for sale by Danbee Aerospace, an aircraft parts broker based in Greensboro, North Carolina.
Nobody seems to suggest that this is a problem with the larger airlines but if you go budget, well ... everything is proportionally budget, isn't it? Star Alliance have a good record though and so it seems unlikely that it was a shoddy parts scam.
Interestingly, one common factor in many crashes seems to be the McDonnell Douglas MD-82. Just something to bear in mind, I suppose.
That's worrying. I had always assumed that the upkeep of planes would be highly supervised. At least they haven't started doing the old car thief's trick of attaching two half planes together to make a new one.
ReplyDeleteHave to keep our eye on them.
ReplyDeleteThats absolutely awful!!
ReplyDeleteLike box kites in the sky, some of these planes.
ReplyDeleteScary stuff!!!
ReplyDeleteYes. Scary. And they do not even have beautiful names, such as Herald of Free Enterprise, and so.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBe it, then:
ReplyDeleteJames, Crushed,
why would you not be able to just 'ignore' one another?
Is the blogosphere not big enough?
To be less diplomatic: It's getting boring. Most boring!
Not 'seldom boring', if you understand what I mean.
The peace of the night.
Sean, I'll address you first. You make the fundamental mistake BP made. Last September, I exposed this man for what he was. He escalated a conflict, including breaching a Blogpower ruling that no one discuss the matter over the Christmas period and it caused me being forced from Blogpower.
ReplyDeleteI put the story as it happened on a post [which I've since removed in the interests of peace]. I have been in some form of normal relations with everyone since and which of the admins would say I haven't done what I could, to the extent of removing offending posts and parts of posts?
I have even removed a sentence from the Labyrinth 1 post below, at the request of the author of the email.
What more must I do?
Now please, from July through to October, where is any vilification of this man in emails to anyone up to the current resurgence of the troubles?
I have consistently maintained and still do, that he breached many BP regulations and should have been removed. He should still be.
But that is not vilification. That is my firm belief, based on evidence i have. I have said he is dangerous. He is - very and i base that on reasons which would cause me to name names, which I refuse to do. Just look at his lawsuit attempt in the summer and at his constant keeping up of the emails around the sphere.
Where have I actually "conducted a campaign"? Show me the posts or the emails. On the contrary, I just wanted to be shut of the thing. I was thoroughly bored by his excesses and had my own problems, as many readers know.
So, some days back, I had a go at what I considered false friends, for reasons stated in the posts. This man was not mentioned in them and the thrust was not remotely centred on him.
He was clear.
And what did he do? He chose to ahve a slanging match with another blogger on my blog and then come in now with this out of context comment which has nothing whatever to do with aeroplanes and shoddy parts.
Does he give a toss about that topic? Does he give a toss about anyone? did he give a toss about BP when he chose to open up the battle again on Christmas eve, 2007?
And yet people defend him for some incredible reason.
I'll leave his comment up here and readers can judge the man for themselves.
The peace of the night to you all.
James,
ReplyDeletephew. ... I knew ...
Personally I think an e-mail would/should have done.
I wish I were a native speaker!!!
Prologue:
1. I (think I) am honest.
2. I do not always say what I mean, but I do (almost) always mean what I say.
3. I'd not tell my opinion about any third person that I could not say when this very person were sitting vis-a-vis.
One example: Crushed knows that once in an e-mail to you I wrote:
Crushed might be a poor soul; 'My blog! My dear dear blog. My dear sweet magic blog [imagine the voice of Gollum] ... :)
And now - as you asked why I would 'attack' you, too:
It's no attack.
To cut it short: Both you and I know to `play with words', would you agree?
We know how to hurt / attack others without mentioning their names, hm?
We are great intellectuals, hm?
:) So your question was a rhetoric one, hm?
Tacheles, again:
I am quite sure, I am writing what many of your visitors do think but would not write.
It's human being's nature: No trouble. Brillant, James. Marvellous darling. You are the greatest, my white knight.
That's easier than saying: Careful, my friend, you are going to follow what's the title of one of your novel's: Obsessions.
Could not explain better, James.
Just to make sure:
1. I do not intend to blaim any of your visitors. Not at all.
2. I am not attacking you.
All I wish is: Take time to contemplate. Sometimes one post less is a post more.
Finally, and again just to make sure: I had not spent the time writing this, wouldn't I like you (very much).
Personally I think an e-mail would/should have done.
:) Anyway, I'd like to see the reaction of all your (silent) friends; especially the reaction of those friends who - by your current chief-commenter - got addressed as friends within inverted commas.
Repeating myself,
the peace of the night.
If I am the chief commenter to I shall say this.
ReplyDeleteSean- I think your 'blog advice' about 'one post less is more' would have been more appropro in another forum, at another time...but you have not missed your window of opportunity as the sequel has been released in techni-colour by the true obsessive.
Here's my Uber advice for you-'one comment less is more', especially when you are not in receipt of the facts.
It would be more prudent that your unsolicited , off topic,blog advice
was in mail.
Not to suggest you're a hypocrit, of course. :)
'One example: Crushed knows that once in an e-mail to you I wrote:
ReplyDeleteCrushed might be a poor soul; 'My blog! My dear dear blog. My dear sweet magic blog [imagine the voice of Gollum] ... :)'
Crushed has unauthorized 'access' to other people's emails/p.c's. and has done for a very long time.
Sean, this response below is appropriate here, not by email, as I want this on the public record:
ReplyDeleteI owe you, in my opinion, a great deal - not just for your help with my novel but in your constant friendship. You are an example of a true friend.
So any fears of any division between us, even though you associate with this man in question, are unfounded. I know you, I know your heart and I'll do whatever I can to promote your blog.
You went through some soul searching about continuing and a few of us urged you not to give it away. You must not give it away because many people derive great pleasure from your persona and your work.
In the matter of this man though - do you see what has happened? You and I have never fallen out but once introduce the CBI factor and suddenly old friends are at odds.
This is the essential divisiveness of the man. Time and again I have made blog friendships; time and again he comes along and starts working on the person and always it ends up with a cooling.
Like all bloggers, I have a wide range of friendships and the only ones I've lost have been through his emailing them at some point. All the others are very much friends.
These are the sort of things I've been getting through the emailover this current business:
"You have also been a friend and comfort to one or two others..."
"I will fight your corner..."
"You really shouldn’t worry about them"
"You are not unloved or alone or uncared for..."
Many people have given their opinion privately that this man is a nutter. Naturally, I can't go round calling him that and where I did impugn him in a post months ago, that has now been removed.
He's a very clever operator [his real life work is as a salesman and apparently he's quite successful initially at each new job where he is taken on]. He knows how to divided and rule and one correspondent said it was such a waste of a very considerable talent.
That's my feeling. Many may know that at the beginning I was supporting him, even to the point of warning him of some people out to get him for what he had said. He wrote back thanking me for that.
Like you, Sean, I'm now thoroughly weary of the whole business and I'm sick of him and the way he sucks everyone down into his agenda like some giant vortex.
I'm just going to get on with blogging inasfar as I am permitted to.
Cheers
Ubermouth - you are uncompromising in the way you operate and many don't like that. I happen to like it.
You are, in my opinion, also a wronged woman in some very key ways and that is why I shall support yours and other women's troubles and do what I can to help such women [and men if the case may be].
Be strong - the darkest hour is just before the dawn.
James,
ReplyDeleteI would suggest 'communicate'would have been more accurate as I don't 'operate'. :)
I am not here to please the mute/blind masses and given my trilogy of posts ,they shall like me even less.
Thank you for your support,efforts, sensitivity and belief.
All online women , and especially me,owe you a debt of gratitude.
I stand corrected. :)
ReplyDeleteJames,
ReplyDeletethanks for this very reply. Much appreciated.
Perhaps I had been a philosopher had I kept silent. :)
However, I thought someone should publicly write what - at least I am quite sure about - many of 'us' do think.
May be, in the eyes of some readers I have made a fool of myself. And such a thought is not far from the truth. :)
I'd love to play the fool, the more when it helps all (!) 'parties' involved to contemplate a while and come to the conclusion: 'The fool's right. We stop this ... .
So, if you find you must repent / from side to side in argument, / at least don't use your mind too hard, / but trust my instinct - I'm a bard. :)
Sean, no one is taking you to task for how you saw it. As you said, most people did think this way and still do.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, only one side was being told and I didn't help this by removing the chronology from my blog. So, in the absence of any definitive statement from me, what else could people think, especially as the line he was taking seems so plausible? He's a plausible sounding person.
Another problem is that people are scared.
Let's look at it logically. If I am wrong and those victims are also wrong, he is an innocent and deserves an apology.
However, if I am right and what they wrote was correct too, then he knows who they are already and can intimidate them.
This is the dilemma and whilst people were not going on record, all I could do was remove any allegations from my blog [I tried at BP too but was prevented] and wait.
This is what I did.
This current fracas actually had nothing to do with this man. It was about false friends. But he came in, blew his own cover and started it all off again.
I repeat - the labyrinth posts were anonymous and the issue is with some people at BP, in an organizational sense.
What this man did was completely incidental. Yet he has brought the agenda back round to himself again by announcing his own name and forced me to post a reply. His agenda again, you see.
Why would I get myself involved in the first place?
Well, why do we blog? Why did I write about Harriet Harman just now or about aeroplane parts? It goes with the territory.
Most people in our part of the sphere, in seeing this as a personal dispute between two people, naturally are tired of it.
I am too but having thrown my hat into the ring last September, there is no way back from there.
It might surprise but I do not think about these things 24/7 - it might occupy 10% of my thinking time. Nor do I have a campaign going myself in his direction. I couldn't care less - I have other fish to fry.
That's the state of it now and I'm not commenting any further here on it.
Most would say amen to that.
James –
ReplyDeleteScary stuff indeed. I just read an article about problems with counterfeit Chinese spare parts putting American warplanes at risk.
Let's put it this way, Dan - I'm not flying on any but the major players now.
ReplyDelete