Well, that just goes to show how oblivious I can be! I've taken off and landed on that runway many times and I never noticed that it goes over a highway. I went to look at the taxi chart and it clearly shows the highway beneath it near the east end.

I checked the LAX taxi chart and there is no indication of a road passing under any of the runways or taxiways.

Google maps/earth shows it:

That is a pretty hidden one, some of these are amazing.

Would pausing the traffic lights become a duty of ATC?

Maybe that just means you are always so focused on the task at hand that you don't get distracted!

I was thinking the same. I'm not sure how pleased I would have been to have read a comment from OP that went something like, "Oh yes, when I'm on final approach to Atlanta, I always make sure to look left and check the traffic."

Does the tunnel running under McCarran count?

only for long hauling.

Maybe because there's a tunnel under the runways and taxiways, instead of a bridge over the road? Not sure, but as the pictures above show, it's really there. It has three lanes in each direction and is one of the main ways to get out of LAX (by car) if you're heading south.

Yeah, that's the difference. I wasn't aware of this one because we can't see a road or traffic (and the people in the cars can't see the planes, of course).

While trying to decide which side of the plane to sit on for an upcoming trip, I stumbled across flightaware.com/live.

It's mesmerizing! And kind of scary if you're looking at busy airspace.

Check http://www.flightradar24.com also.

W0X0F... I fly from Dublin to USA a couple of times a year as I love coming to the states when I can!

I am wondering what makes flying for that long over the ocean so safe? Obviously you can't make emergency stops here so the flights have to be incredibly safe?

Not really sure how to word the question that is in my head. I guess I am looking for some proof that it is safer flying in these transatlantic planes over a standard Dublin-London plane

I really hate flying but do it because I know I have to so anything you can say to make me feel a bit better about the experience would be appreciated!

I know it's been said here many times before, but privacy the best thing you can do is read this thread from beginning to end.

Concerning PA announcements...I had a first the other day, before we took off, got both the runway number and takeoff speed and before we landed, the runway number and landing speed.

Has the phonetic alphabet ever changed? I thought I used to hear "Nevada" for N, but I know it's "November".

Always been November.

If you watch old war movies, you'll often hear the old phonetic alphabet used. You remember Easy company from Band of Brothers? In today's army that would be Echo company. The U.S. military adopted a new phonetic alphabet around 1956 and that's the one we use today. So we now have Alfa, Bravo, Charlie, Delta instead of the old Able, Baker, Charlie, Dog (notice that Charlie made the cut). The letter N is November, but it used to be Nan (Nuts for the Brits). I can't find any instance of it ever being Nevada.

Here are two links showing various phonetic alphabets:

Phonetic Alphabets off the World

U.S. and British Phonetic Alphabets before 1956


When I started flying, way back in 1977, I'd still occasionally hear some of the old alphabet used. We had a plane on the flight line with a tail number ending in "SS" and I remember some of the older pilots referring to it as "sugar sugar." It's also interesting to note that in Atlanta, where Delta airplanes predominate, they refer to the D taxiway as Dixie to eliminate confusion with all the Delta callsigns being used on the Ground Control frequency (while simultaneously giving a nod to Atlanta's southern heritage).

Safety in aviation is all about mitigating threats. On the mechanical side we do this with reliability of systems and redundancy of the really critical ones. On the human side, we have training that emphasizes standard procedures and checklist usage.

Healthy engines are obviously critical to safe flight and the first passenger flights across the ocean were in four-engine recips (prop planes with reciprocating engines, such as the DC-6 and DC-7). And they needed this redundancy. It was not at all unusual to have an engine problem back in those days, so you really needed the extra safety margin. Reciprocating engines, by their nature, are just more prone to mechanical problems. Whereas a jet, or turbine engine, is simply spinning, a reciprocating engine is, in a sense, just beating itself to death.

When the jet age began, you had four-engine jets (707, DC-8) making the ocean crossings. The reliability became immediately obvious and soon three-engine jets (DC-10, L-1011) joined the planes crossing the pond. But it was a long time before we had twin-engine jets on those routes; the redundancy was considered too critical.

As the reliability of jet engines improved over the years, the idea of extended twin-engine operations (ETOPS) over water became feasible. The engines on trans-oceanic planes are not inherently more reliable than those on domestic flights (can you imagine trying to justify a less safe engine for domestic routes?) but ETOPS planes are checked by mechanics prior to each crossing and statistics are kept on the reliability of each company's ETOPS fleet.

If reliability levels fall, the company's ETOPS certification could be revoked, or more restrictive ETOPS requirements might be enforced. For example, they could be temporarily limited to ETOPS 60 rather than ETOPS 120 or 180. The number is a measure of how close the plane must be, measured in minutes of flying time, to a suitable divert field. A lower number means a longer route and this, of course, translates to time and money.

W0X0F, not sure if this belongs here or in the MA thread but this is just in;
Airbus crashed in Southern France
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-10129817.html

Seems like the 142 passengers and six crew members were all killed.

Seems like a rapid descent

http://www.flightradar24.com/data/ai...-aipx/#5d42675

Sent from my Nexus 10 using 2+2 Forums

The crazy thing is that it looks like they lost altitude when coming up over land and they had some decent miles in them, the Nice airport seems very feasible from that point on in the flight. Like why would they not divert when they seem to be losing altitude that quickly ?

Descent seemed to start as they passed over Toulon. Hmmmmm...

Sent from my Nexus 10 using 2+2 Forums

We usually have separate threads for crashes like this one, probably should start one.

EDIT: Just did, copied yer link Yak.

Just as I ask for W0X0F to help me not fear flying as much a plane crashes in Europe. FML

Stop and think about how many thousands of flights have taken off and landed safely between the last major airline disaster and the one yesterday.

I used to travel a good deal for work, and someone asked me if I was ever worried. My answer? "I get nervous every time I get off the plane and into the taxi."

Orders of magnitude more risk on the highway than in the air.

http://www.arabnews.com/news/537081

A couple of excerpts:

1 in 3,000,000. The following activities are more risky than flying:

Hang-gliding
Skydiving
Boxing
Scuba diving
American football
Canoeing
Swimming
Running
Walking
Bungee Jumping
Cycling
Snowboarding
Skiing
Mountain Hiking
Mountain Climbing
Driving a car
Driving a motorcycle
Dancing
Table Tennis
Rock Climbing
Scuba Diving
Horse Riding
Tennis
Soccer

So, stop walking everybody because your odds of dying are higher than that of flying in a plane.

http://www.besthealthdegrees.com/health-risks/

http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandoli...sk/sports.html