Comments for Lost in Transliteration http://fumbling.com/lost You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you odd Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:12:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 Comment on It also says you can’t put squirrels down your pants for the purposes of gambling by Mike http://fumbling.com/lost/2010/07/it-also-says-you-cant-put-squirrels/#comment-4 Mike Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:12:15 +0000 http://fumbling.com/lost/?p=583#comment-4 Pressurization would take care of the whole "how do you keep someone from getting out" problem, since the vast vast vast majority of pressurized cabin doors open inwards -- you're talking about multiple hundreds of pounds of pressure keeping the door firmly shut. (You can, in fact, yank on a door on a commercial flight all you want while you're in cruise, and the only thing that will happen is a advisory pops up on EICAS saying "L FWD ENT DOOR" or whatever. Meanwhile, you will be soundly beaten by the crew and terrified passengers, but that's your problem, not the aircraft's. I'm not sure how far you'll even be able to move the handle, since the mechanical action pulls the door in within the first 1/3 of the rotation, so you may not even provoke the EICAS message -- just the beating.) For the non-pressurized cabin, I suppose TC figures that the penalty of falling to your death (it isn't the fall that kills you, or the stop at the end, but rather the realization that you are, in fact, that stupid) is enough of a deterrent that the PIC doesn't have to be more explicit about that point. If you read the 603.02/603.67 exceptions, it's pretty clear that Transport is talking about things like dropping people off and picking them up off of structures, rather than off of other aircraft -- which pretty much means helicopters. (The CARs actually talk about aerial inspection work in this context, which hadn't occurred to me initially.) Though I admit to curiosity about how the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_surface-to-air_recovery_system" rel="nofollow">Fulton system</a> would be viewed under 602.25... Pressurization would take care of the whole “how do you keep someone from getting out” problem, since the vast vast vast majority of pressurized cabin doors open inwards — you’re talking about multiple hundreds of pounds of pressure keeping the door firmly shut. (You can, in fact, yank on a door on a commercial flight all you want while you’re in cruise, and the only thing that will happen is a advisory pops up on EICAS saying “L FWD ENT DOOR” or whatever. Meanwhile, you will be soundly beaten by the crew and terrified passengers, but that’s your problem, not the aircraft’s. I’m not sure how far you’ll even be able to move the handle, since the mechanical action pulls the door in within the first 1/3 of the rotation, so you may not even provoke the EICAS message — just the beating.)

For the non-pressurized cabin, I suppose TC figures that the penalty of falling to your death (it isn’t the fall that kills you, or the stop at the end, but rather the realization that you are, in fact, that stupid) is enough of a deterrent that the PIC doesn’t have to be more explicit about that point.

If you read the 603.02/603.67 exceptions, it’s pretty clear that Transport is talking about things like dropping people off and picking them up off of structures, rather than off of other aircraft — which pretty much means helicopters. (The CARs actually talk about aerial inspection work in this context, which hadn’t occurred to me initially.) Though I admit to curiosity about how the Fulton system would be viewed under 602.25…

]]> Comment on It also says you can’t put squirrels down your pants for the purposes of gambling by LS http://fumbling.com/lost/2010/07/it-also-says-you-cant-put-squirrels/#comment-3 LS Sun, 11 Jul 2010 06:46:30 +0000 http://fumbling.com/lost/?p=583#comment-3 Rules-lawyering suggests this commando squad could offer a defense based on duly parachuting out after they'd done their thing. On the other hand, I guess that means that if it's not over somewhere unpopulated, you can't incapacitate at least one person within able to fly the bird, since anyone who stayed onboard to land it would be in violation. Perhaps less bothersome to just borrow a SAM from some random public depot instead. I'd also like to see those regs continue on to define what constitutes acceptable means of preventing entry and/or exit, since the reality is probably much less fun than my imagination would like it to be. Rules-lawyering suggests this commando squad could offer a defense based on duly parachuting out after they’d done their thing. On the other hand, I guess that means that if it’s not over somewhere unpopulated, you can’t incapacitate at least one person within able to fly the bird, since anyone who stayed onboard to land it would be in violation. Perhaps less bothersome to just borrow a SAM from some random public depot instead.

I’d also like to see those regs continue on to define what constitutes acceptable means of preventing entry and/or exit, since the reality is probably much less fun than my imagination would like it to be.

]]>