Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 07:01:20 +0000
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 18:46:43 on Wed, 9 Dec 2020, " remarked: What about radiation levels? One of the case studies I did when at University was the radiation levels experienced by Concorde crews (because it cruised at 60,000ft), so it is something they've been taking into account for a very long time. Wouldn't some aluminium and various other bits of gubbins between the pilot and outside at least partly offset radiation? Is the problem mainly ionising radiation or UV? |
#43
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#44
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Recliner wrote:
Sam Wilson wrote: Recliner wrote: Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:55:26 on Tue, 8 Dec 2020, remarked: On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 09:21:22 +0000 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 08:29:39 on Tue, 8 Dec 2020, remarked: Is being a crossrail driver harder or does it pay significantly less than elsewhere? Thats a genuine question, I have no idea. One obvious feature (that also applies to HEx, C2C and Island Line) is a relatively limited amount of route and traction knowledge required. Thats probably a bonus - less learning. See harder/easier. On the other hand, it's going to be pretty boring (like the Victoria Line or Waterloo and City). Most of its above ground. But I suspect any driving job gets boring after a while regardless of the vehicle, even flying a plane. It's probably more boring flying a commuter plane within a hundred mile radius of somewhere like Dallas or Atlanta, than being on long haul transatlantic flights to numerous destinations in Europe and the Far East. I think long distance flying is much more boring for the pilots. It's the take-offs and landings that make the job interesting; cruising is very boring. And on ultra long haul flights, the four pilots only get a single take-off or landing in a week-long return trip. That's not even enough to maintain their proficiency ratings. There is (or was) a well known meme[1] that describes long distance flying as 8 hours of absolute boredom with 2 miniutes of panic at either end. Sam [1] or whatever we used to call what we now call memes I think there's up to an hour of interesting or varied work at each end of the flight, with at least the take-off hand flown. The hours in the middle are largely on auto-pilot, with occasional ATC contact. There’s the pre-flight admin stuff but AFAICT once you’re off the ground and established in climb you’re basically following ATC’s instructions to get you up to cruising and on route, and following a couple of pretty relaxed checklists. Getting into a crowded airport can be quite busy, but again quite a lot of it is just responding to ATC, who have the really heavy workload. I speak as a keen YouTube watcher, you understand. :-) Sam -- The entity formerly known as Spit the dummy to reply |
#45
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#46
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 11:53:27 +0000
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:16:16 on Thu, 10 Dec 2020, remarked: On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 07:01:20 +0000 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 18:46:43 on Wed, 9 Dec 2020, " remarked: What about radiation levels? One of the case studies I did when at University was the radiation levels experienced by Concorde crews (because it cruised at 60,000ft), so it is something they've been taking into account for a very long time. Wouldn't some aluminium and various other bits of gubbins between the pilot and outside Lead perhaps, not something one often sees structurally on planes. I'm not suggesting it would block it completely, but a sheet of aluminium must be equivalent to quite a few thousand feet of air surely. |
#47
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at 12:08:14 on Thu, 10 Dec
2020, remarked: On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 11:53:27 +0000 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:16:16 on Thu, 10 Dec 2020, remarked: On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 07:01:20 +0000 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 18:46:43 on Wed, 9 Dec 2020, " remarked: What about radiation levels? One of the case studies I did when at University was the radiation levels experienced by Concorde crews (because it cruised at 60,000ft), so it is something they've been taking into account for a very long time. Wouldn't some aluminium and various other bits of gubbins between the pilot and outside Lead perhaps, not something one often sees structurally on planes. I'm not suggesting it would block it completely, but a sheet of aluminium must be equivalent to quite a few thousand feet of air surely. Don't call me Shirley. -- Roland Perry |
#48
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#49
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 12:04:23 +0000, David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 09:16:16AM +0000, wrote: Wouldn't some aluminium and various other bits of gubbins between the pilot and outside at least partly offset radiation? Is the problem mainly ionising radiation or UV? UV *is* ionising radation, although nothing like as good at it as the higher frequencies are. I assume UV would all be blocked by the fuselage; would the windscreens not also block some or all of it? The other ionising radiation will penetrate the windscreens much more easily than the fuselage, meaning the pilots are at more risk than cabin crew. However, I think cabin crew do more flying hours in a month, so it might balance out. Presumably the new carbon fibre fuselages provide less protection than the traditional alloy skins? |
#50
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at 14:24:18 on
Sat, 12 Dec 2020, Recliner remarked: Wouldn't some aluminium and various other bits of gubbins between the pilot and outside at least partly offset radiation? Is the problem mainly ionising radiation or UV? UV *is* ionising radation, although nothing like as good at it as the higher frequencies are. I assume UV would all be blocked by the fuselage; would the windscreens not also block some or all of it? The other ionising radiation will penetrate the windscreens much more easily than the fuselage, meaning the pilots are at more risk than cabin crew. However, I think cabin crew do more flying hours in a month, so it might balance out. Presumably the new carbon fibre fuselages provide less protection than the traditional alloy skins? All of this is routine H&S stuff for at least a generation. I suggest you don't lose any sleep over it. -- Roland Perry |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
There's only one thing left to do!! Smoke the toilet! | London Transport | |||
There are more information there | London Transport | |||
Why People Won't Use Public Transport in London | London Transport | |||
Airport chaos - It won't change | London Transport |