"Taliban Doors"

[EDR]

Has anyone heard the stories from airline pilots of 767 aircraft about
the placement of the unlock switch for the mandated "Taliban Doors"?

On at least one aircarrier, they are next to the fuel cutoff switches.
Care to guess how many times the wrong switch has been flipped after
they were first installed?

[Ron Natalie]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> EDR wrote:
> >
> > On at least one aircarrier, they are next to the fuel cutoff switches.
> > Care to guess how many times the wrong switch has been flipped after
> > they were first installed?
>
> Well, since you aren't going to hit the fuel cutoff switches in the air under
> normal circumstances, I'd say it doesn't matter much.

But you do open the flight deck door in the air.

[G.R. Patterson III]

EDR wrote:
>
> On at least one aircarrier, they are next to the fuel cutoff switches.
> Care to guess how many times the wrong switch has been flipped after
> they were first installed?

Well, since you aren't going to hit the fuel cutoff switches in the air under
normal circumstances, I'd say it doesn't matter much.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> But you do open the flight deck door in the air.

Ah, yes. So we're back to the old "make sure it's the flaps and not the gear before
you hit the switch" scenario.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[R. Hubbell]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:20:36 GMT EDR > wrote:

> Has anyone heard the stories from airline pilots of 767 aircraft about
> the placement of the unlock switch for the mandated "Taliban Doors"?
>
> On at least one aircarrier, they are next to the fuel cutoff switches.
> Care to guess how many times the wrong switch has been flipped after
> they were first installed?


Interesting side-note to the new doors, Ralph Nader and his Raiders
proposed improved doors back in 1987 but the airlines balked.


R. Hubbell

[Ron Natalie]

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message news:TwgKb.101503$pY.93513@fed1read04...

> Interesting side-note to the new doors, Ralph Nader and his Raiders
> proposed improved doors back in 1987 but the airlines balked.
>
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[Dean Wilkinson]

I guess none...

The fuel cutoff switches on the 767 must be pulled out, flipped down,
and shoved back in to cutoff the fuel. They aren't simply flip
switches like the cabin door lock switches most likely are. The fuel
cutoff switches are designed to require a very deliberate act on the
part of crew to ensure that accidental fuel cutoff never happens.

This is why the flight data records of the Egypt air flight that was
kamikazee'd into the Atlantic were so telling... the fuel cutoff
switches were both moved to the off position shortly after the first
officer began losing the flight control battle (I push you pull) with
the captain. Once he cut off fuel to the engines, they were toast...
an in flight restart with a first officer fighting to crash the plane
would be difficult at best.

Dean

EDR > wrote in message >...
> Has anyone heard the stories from airline pilots of 767 aircraft about
> the placement of the unlock switch for the mandated "Taliban Doors"?
>
> On at least one aircarrier, they are next to the fuel cutoff switches.
> Care to guess how many times the wrong switch has been flipped after
> they were first installed?

[Resident Cynic]

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 12:12:36 -0500, "Ron Natalie" > wrote:

>
> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message news:TwgKb.101503$pY.93513@fed1read04...
>
> > Interesting side-note to the new doors, Ralph Nader and his Raiders
> > proposed improved doors back in 1987 but the airlines balked.
> >
> Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

I've heard that saying so many times, and this is the best application of it
that I have read! Bravo!!!

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:TwgKb.101503$pY.93513@fed1read04...
>
> > Interesting side-note to the new doors, Ralph Nader and his Raiders
> > proposed improved doors back in 1987 but the airlines balked.
> >
> Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Rather like the ESP experiments...they don't even hit the level of
chance/good guess.

He (Nader) has proposed quite a lot in his day. If all his recommendations
were adopted, a medium valued car would cost $170,000, a Cessna 182 would be
$750K and would weigh 5,500 lbs empty.

Nader isn't a rocket scientist by any means...he's not even a engineer, and
certainly has never run any business other than his strong-arm organization
that would do the Mafia proud. Yet the scumbag raises $$millions and he got
5% of the vote...beating even the Libertarian candidate.

[R. Hubbell]

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 12:12:36 -0500 "Ron Natalie" > wrote:

>
> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message news:TwgKb.101503$pY.93513@fed1read04...
>
> > Interesting side-note to the new doors, Ralph Nader and his Raiders
> > proposed improved doors back in 1987 but the airlines balked.
> >
> Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
>

Actually that's incorrect. A stopped clock
would only be right if you looked at it at the exact
moment of the time that's displayed. This is all based
on the assumption that it's a clock with hands and that
it's a 12 hour clock.

Sorry to be the one to burst your bubble. I'm sure
you'll get over it though. :)

R. Hubbell

[Tom Sixkiller]

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:8yrKb.101761$pY.40836@fed1read04...
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 12:12:36 -0500 "Ron Natalie" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:TwgKb.101503$pY.93513@fed1read04...
> >
> > > Interesting side-note to the new doors, Ralph Nader and his Raiders
> > > proposed improved doors back in 1987 but the airlines balked.
> > >
> > Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
> >
>
> Actually that's incorrect. A stopped clock
> would only be right if you looked at it at the exact
> moment of the time that's displayed. This is all based
> on the assumption that it's a clock with hands and that
> it's a 12 hour clock.

The clock is right (for that infintessimal moment) whether you're looking at
it or not.

> Sorry to be the one to burst your bubble. I'm sure
> you'll get over it though. :)

Sorry to burst yours. :~)

[R. Hubbell]

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 22:26:24 -0700 "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:

>
> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
> news:8yrKb.101761$pY.40836@fed1read04...
> > On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 12:12:36 -0500 "Ron Natalie" > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
> news:TwgKb.101503$pY.93513@fed1read04...
> > >
> > > > Interesting side-note to the new doors, Ralph Nader and his Raiders
> > > > proposed improved doors back in 1987 but the airlines balked.
> > > >
> > > Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
> > >
> >
> > Actually that's incorrect. A stopped clock
> > would only be right if you looked at it at the exact
> > moment of the time that's displayed. This is all based
> > on the assumption that it's a clock with hands and that
> > it's a 12 hour clock.
>
> The clock is right (for that infintessimal moment) whether you're looking at
> it or not.


You'd be wrong about that, because if I'm not looking at it for the time
shown but only at the time not shown then it's wrong. And if I look at
twice a day, it'll be wrong both times.

I guess I burst your bubble too. Humble apologies. :)


R. Hubbell

[Tom Sixkiller]

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:pPrKb.101764$pY.86831@fed1read04...
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 22:26:24 -0700 "Tom Sixkiller" >
wrote:
>
> >
> > "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
> > news:8yrKb.101761$pY.40836@fed1read04...
> > > On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 12:12:36 -0500 "Ron Natalie" >
wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
> > news:TwgKb.101503$pY.93513@fed1read04...
> > > >
> > > > > Interesting side-note to the new doors, Ralph Nader and his
Raiders
> > > > > proposed improved doors back in 1987 but the airlines balked.
> > > > >
> > > > Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Actually that's incorrect. A stopped clock
> > > would only be right if you looked at it at the exact
> > > moment of the time that's displayed. This is all based
> > > on the assumption that it's a clock with hands and that
> > > it's a 12 hour clock.
> >
> > The clock is right (for that infintessimal moment) whether you're
looking at
> > it or not.
>
>
> You'd be wrong about that, because if I'm not looking at it for the time
> shown but only at the time not shown then it's wrong. And if I look at
> twice a day, it'll be wrong both times.

(You really should leave the subjectivism behind once you reach adulthood)

Sigh!!! It's wrong all but twice a day.
>
> I guess I burst your bubble too. Humble apologies. :)
>
They should be humble.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Tom Sixkiller" > said:
>Nader isn't a rocket scientist by any means...he's not even a engineer, and
>certainly has never run any business other than his strong-arm organization
>that would do the Mafia proud. Yet the scumbag raises $$millions and he got
>5% of the vote...beating even the Libertarian candidate.

Yeah, he's such a scumbag because he forced companies to stop accepting a
few dozen deaths a year because it was cheaper to pay off lawsuits than to
add a few cents to the price of each car.

Next time you're in a car that DOESN'T spray flaming gasoline all over you
when it's lightly rear-ended, remember that.

--
"The magic of usenet has never been its technology; and, only in part, its
reach. Its magic -- its power -- is based on the very real human connections
that form 'round its threads of conversation... the relationships that are
kindled, flamed and, on occasion, extinguished and mourned." -deCadmus

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 12:08:38 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote in Message-Id: >:

>In a previous article, "Tom Sixkiller" > said:
>>Nader isn't a rocket scientist by any means...he's not even a engineer, and
>>certainly has never run any business other than his strong-arm organization
>>that would do the Mafia proud. Yet the scumbag raises $$millions and he got
>>5% of the vote...beating even the Libertarian candidate.
>
>Yeah, he's such a scumbag because he forced companies to stop accepting a
>few dozen deaths a year because it was cheaper to pay off lawsuits than to
>add a few cents to the price of each car.

Paul, you seem to lack respect of laissez-faire capitalism. In the
USA, production of goods are determined by free market competition.
Competition in the marketplace dictates that a business reduce costs
lower than its competitors or face economic extinction.

If the people of the USA, represented by their government, and in this
case Ralph Nader, demand products that are designed with safety as
their paramount design criterion instead of absolute minimum price,
how are businesses supposed to remain competitive? With a
safety-first mandate, Ford and General Motors will surely fail soon.
:-)

>Next time you're in a car that DOESN'T spray flaming gasoline all over you
>when it's lightly rear-ended, remember that.

Incinerating a few hapless families due to the cost savings provided
by cost-reduction driven engineering, instead of safety as the primary
criterion, is just collateral damage along the road to business
profitability. Sacrifices must be made for the corporate bottom line.
:-)


But seriously...

Left to itself the auto industry would jettison auto safety in a
heartbeat. Ford produced Pintos with their exploding gas tanks and GM
pickups with side-saddle gas tanks located within the passenger
compartment burned to death over 750 people.

Thanks mostly to Ralph Nader, a graduate of Harvard Law School,
drivers in the USA are surrounded with costly seat belts, air bags,
anti-lock brakes, collapsible steering columns, roll-over protection
and steel 'I' beams in the doors. Despite these safety measures,
every 14 seconds someone is injured in a traffic crash, and every 14
minutes someone is killed. And according to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, traffic crashes cost America more than
$150 billion a year – an average of $580 per person. Big business
would argue, "better these costs be paid by the American people than
us." It's another example of big business' exploitation for profit.


--
"I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect
our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."
--Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Tom Sixkiller" > said:
> >Nader isn't a rocket scientist by any means...he's not even a engineer,
and
> >certainly has never run any business other than his strong-arm
organization
> >that would do the Mafia proud. Yet the scumbag raises $$millions and he
got
> >5% of the vote...beating even the Libertarian candidate.
>
> Yeah, he's such a scumbag because he forced companies to stop accepting a
> few dozen deaths a year because it was cheaper to pay off lawsuits than to
> add a few cents to the price of each car.
>
> Next time you're in a car that DOESN'T spray flaming gasoline all over you
> when it's lightly rear-ended, remember that.

Car's were made without defects LONG before Nader was even BORN. Remeber
this, too: Most criticism is SELF-SERVING.

Grow TF up!

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In a previous article, "Tom Sixkiller" > said:
> > >Nader isn't a rocket scientist by any means...he's not even a engineer,
> and
> > >certainly has never run any business other than his strong-arm
> organization
> > >that would do the Mafia proud. Yet the scumbag raises $$millions and he
> got
> > >5% of the vote...beating even the Libertarian candidate.
> >
> > Yeah, he's such a scumbag because he forced companies to stop accepting
a
> > few dozen deaths a year because it was cheaper to pay off lawsuits than
to
> > add a few cents to the price of each car.
> >
> > Next time you're in a car that DOESN'T spray flaming gasoline all over
you
> > when it's lightly rear-ended, remember that.
>
> Car's were made without defects LONG before Nader was even BORN. Remeber
> this, too: Most criticism is SELF-SERVING.

Clarification: "...defects were corrected...".
>
> Grow TF up!
>
>
>
>

[Newps]

Paul Tomblin wrote:


>
> Next time you're in a car that DOESN'T spray flaming gasoline all over you
> when it's lightly rear-ended, remember that.
>
Every car used to do that? My memory fails me.

[Ron Natalie]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message ...
>> >
> > You'd be wrong about that, because if I'm not looking at it for the time
> > shown but only at the time not shown then it's wrong. And if I look at
> > twice a day, it'll be wrong both times.
>
> (You really should leave the subjectivism behind once you reach adulthood)
>
How long does an 8-day clock go without winding?

[Big John]

Tom

This may be a paraphrase of the old shaggy dog.?

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it.

Does it make a noise?

Big John

What goes around comes around they say.


On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 22:26:24 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
wrote:

>
>"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
>news:8yrKb.101761$pY.40836@fed1read04...
>> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 12:12:36 -0500 "Ron Natalie" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
>news:TwgKb.101503$pY.93513@fed1read04...
>> >
>> > > Interesting side-note to the new doors, Ralph Nader and his Raiders
>> > > proposed improved doors back in 1987 but the airlines balked.
>> > >
>> > Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
>> >
>>
>> Actually that's incorrect. A stopped clock
>> would only be right if you looked at it at the exact
>> moment of the time that's displayed. This is all based
>> on the assumption that it's a clock with hands and that
>> it's a 12 hour clock.
>
>The clock is right (for that infintessimal moment) whether you're looking at
>it or not.
>
>> Sorry to be the one to burst your bubble. I'm sure
>> you'll get over it though. :)
>
>Sorry to burst yours. :~)
>

[John Galban]

Big John > wrote in message >...
> Tom
>
> This may be a paraphrase of the old shaggy dog.?
>
> If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it.
>
> Does it make a noise?
>
If I make a statement and my girlfriend is not around to hear it, am
I still wrong??


John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Dave Stadt]

"John Galban" > wrote in message
om...
> Big John > wrote in message
>...
> > Tom
> >
> > This may be a paraphrase of the old shaggy dog.?
> >
> > If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it.
> >
> > Does it make a noise?
> >
> If I make a statement and my girlfriend is not around to hear it, am
> I still wrong??
>
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

After 31 years of marriage I can guarantee that yes, you are wrong.

[Morgans]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Tom Sixkiller" > said:
> >Nader isn't a rocket scientist by any means...he's not even a engineer,
and
> >certainly has never run any business other than his strong-arm
organization
> >that would do the Mafia proud. Yet the scumbag raises $$millions and he
got
> >5% of the vote...beating even the Libertarian candidate.
>
> Yeah, he's such a scumbag because he forced companies to stop accepting a
> few dozen deaths a year because it was cheaper to pay off lawsuits than to
> add a few cents to the price of each car.
>
> Next time you're in a car that DOESN'T spray flaming gasoline all over you
> when it's lightly rear-ended, remember that.

I will also remember all of the good products, and companies, that he has
sent into financial ruin.
To me, he always will be a horse's ass.
--
Jim in NC

P. S. your hero worship is miss-founded. Do some research on what kind of
guy 'ole Ralphie really is.
--
Jim in NC

[EDR]

In article >, John
Galban > wrote:
> If I make a statement and my girlfriend is not around to hear it, am
> I still wrong??

Only if your wife finds out.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
> >> >
> > > You'd be wrong about that, because if I'm not looking at it for the
time
> > > shown but only at the time not shown then it's wrong. And if I look
at
> > > twice a day, it'll be wrong both times.
> >
> > (You really should leave the subjectivism behind once you reach
adulthood)
> >
> How long does an 8-day clock go without winding?
>

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Tom
>
> This may be a paraphrase of the old shaggy dog.?
>
> If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it.
>
> Does it make a noise?

Technical answer: No. Noise is something HEARD, it does, however, create
shock waves we call "sound".

> Big John
>
> What goes around comes around they say.

Who is "they"? (and do "they" leave cookies on your computer?).

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
gy.com...
>
> "John Galban" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Big John > wrote in message
> >...
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > This may be a paraphrase of the old shaggy dog.?
> > >
> > > If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it.
> > >
> > > Does it make a noise?
> > >
> > If I make a statement and my girlfriend is not around to hear it, am
> > I still wrong??
> >
> >
> > John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> After 31 years of marriage I can guarantee that yes, you are wrong.
>
Well, I've only been married 24 years, but I can emphatically say: "You
don't even have to SAY it; you merely need THINK it and you're wrong!".

[Tom Sixkiller]

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, John
> Galban > wrote:
> > If I make a statement and my girlfriend is not around to hear it, am
> > I still wrong??
>
> Only if your wife finds out.

Nope! See my previous reply.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In a previous article, "Tom Sixkiller" > said:
> > >Nader isn't a rocket scientist by any means...he's not even a engineer,
> and
> > >certainly has never run any business other than his strong-arm
> organization
> > >that would do the Mafia proud. Yet the scumbag raises $$millions and he
> got
> > >5% of the vote...beating even the Libertarian candidate.
> >
> > Yeah, he's such a scumbag because he forced companies to stop accepting
a
> > few dozen deaths a year because it was cheaper to pay off lawsuits than
to
> > add a few cents to the price of each car.
> >
> > Next time you're in a car that DOESN'T spray flaming gasoline all over
you
> > when it's lightly rear-ended, remember that.
>
> I will also remember all of the good products, and companies, that he has
> sent into financial ruin.
> To me, he always will be a horse's ass.
As mentioned: criticism is often self-serving. In Nader's case, it's 98%
wrong and 100% self-serving.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> Well, I've only been married 24 years, but I can emphatically say: "You
> don't even have to SAY it; you merely need THINK it and you're wrong!".

Sounds like you married my first wife. Sorry to hear that.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."