Airport and Airport 1975

[Dave J]

Okay, in a fit of aviation desperation, I decided to watch these two
films back to back as a way to get my regular fix without running the
Hobbs.

The movies are interesting. They're this strange mix of preposterous
and kinda 1/2 decent from an aviation persepective, especially the
first one. They definitely have all the seeds necessary for the follow-
on funny-on-purpose Airplane films.

The original Airport (I think) does a relatively good job of showing
what it might be like to run a busy airport and mange the needs of the
airlines, passengers, surrounding city, etc.

The second movie, where a Baron hits the cockpit of a 747 and the
first officer is sucked out, well, that was just ridiculous. Even the
special effects looked like they pulled a rag doll out the window.
They clearly weren't even trying with the details. It only got worse
when they used a helicopter to lower in a new pilot through the hole.

I'll say this, though, my odd preoccupation throughout Airport 1975
was for that poor Baron pilot and his wife. I kept thinking, they're
gonna blame that guy for everything: pilot error, loss of control in
IMC, etc -- when really his only piloting mistake was expiring at the
controls. Who's to blame for that, his AME? He actually had shown good
judgment earlier in the film by landing to let a line pass.

Anyway, it all fits in well with the four directives of flying:
aviate, navigate, communicate, blame the dead guy

Thank you for indulging me in this pointless post! :)

-- dave j

[Dave J]

It's bad form to follow up one's own post, but I thought I would
mention that the first film (Airport) ends with a PAR approach. It
might be worth it to rent and fast-forward just to see that. I've
practiced one in my life with a very bored controller at Travis AFB,
if I remember correctly, but it went like the movie, except the
controller gave me relative turns (left 5 degree, right 5 degrees) not
bearings (left to 285) like in the movie.

There are glimpses of the controller's scope, which is also
interesting, showing a blip on two separate screens, one sweeping
laterally, the other vertically. Makes sense.

One odd thing is that the movie shows the vor/glidescope head as they
fly the approach, so it looks like they had a working ILS. That could
have been movie stupidity, or it could have just been an example of
good ADM -- using all available resources.

-- dave j

[Mxsmanic]

Dave J writes:

> It's bad form to follow up one's own post, but I thought I would
> mention that the first film (Airport) ends with a PAR approach. It
> might be worth it to rent and fast-forward just to see that. I've
> practiced one in my life with a very bored controller at Travis AFB,
> if I remember correctly, but it went like the movie, except the
> controller gave me relative turns (left 5 degree, right 5 degrees) not
> bearings (left to 285) like in the movie.

I've never figured out why the pilots ask for a PAR approach in that movie. I
guess the only reason is that it makes for more action and dialogue on screen.
The damage to the aircraft was towards the rear, so all the avionics would be
intact.

> One odd thing is that the movie shows the vor/glidescope head as they
> fly the approach, so it looks like they had a working ILS. That could
> have been movie stupidity, or it could have just been an example of
> good ADM -- using all available resources.

I think that following the needles on the ILS silently would not have been as
dramatic.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Peter R.]

On 4/19/2007 1:15:53 PM, Dave J wrote:

> The second movie, where a Baron hits the cockpit of a 747 and the
> first officer is sucked out, well, that was just ridiculous. Even the
> special effects looked like they pulled a rag doll out the window.

In regards to special effects, it was 1975 fercryinoutloud. :) IMO you are
critiquing that aspect of the movie through a point of view augmented by time
and the incredible realism leap thanks to digital special effects. At the
time the effects actually were not as bad as time now makes them.

I was 11 when the movie first came out and I recall reading a school
book-club purchased paperback back then about how they made the movie. The
producers actually spent quite a bit on numerous aerial scenes and the
salaries of the star-studded cast.

Oh, and from the viewpoint of an eleven year-old, I thought the movie was
entertaining and quite suspenseful. :)

--
Peter

[Ron Natalie]

Dave J wrote:

> The original Airport (I think) does a relatively good job of showing
> what it might be like to run a busy airport and mange the needs of the
> airlines, passengers, surrounding city, etc.

Of course, that movie was based on Arthur Hailey's excellent book of
the same name. The culled out a lot of the details (they totally
removed the ATC plot line, for example) but it still was a pretty
good treatment. Loved the GCA approach.

The sequels were all junk.

>

[Dave J]

Ah! Maybe I'll read the book sometime. I have a feeling it'll have
more realistic detail fir aviation junkies!

Dave J

On Apr 19, 12:49 pm, Ron Natalie > wrote:
> Of course, that movie was based on Arthur Hailey's excellent book of
> the same name. The culled out a lot of the details (they totally
> removed the ATC plot line, for example) but it still was a pretty
> good treatment. Loved the GCA approach.

[Dave J]

Fair enough. For the record I was as-yet unborn when the first film
came out, and not long walking for the second. In my opinion, though,
some shots might have been better left out altogether, leaving it to
the imagination.

I'll also say this about the generation gap. I clearly missed the days
when people dressed up to fly, or when flight attendants flirted with
anybody.

-- dave j

On Apr 19, 12:33 pm, "Peter R." > wrote:
> In regards to special effects, it was 1975 fercryinoutloud. :) IMO you are
> critiquing that aspect of the movie through a point of view augmented by time
> and the incredible realism leap thanks to digital special effects. At the
> time the effects actually were not as bad as time now makes them.

[Jose]

> I'll also say this about the generation gap. I clearly missed the days
> when people dressed up to fly, or when flight attendants flirted with
> anybody.

They still do, on charter jets.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 19, 11:15 am, Dave J > wrote:
> Okay, in a fit of aviation desperation, I decided to watch these two
> films back to back as a way to get my regular fix without running the
> Hobbs.
>
> The movies are interesting. They're this strange mix of preposterous
> and kinda 1/2 decent from an aviation persepective, especially the
> first one. They definitely have all the seeds necessary for the follow-
> on funny-on-purpose Airplane films.
>
> The original Airport (I think) does a relatively good job of showing
> what it might be like to run a busy airport and mange the needs of the
> airlines, passengers, surrounding city, etc.
>
> The second movie, where a Baron hits the cockpit of a 747 and the
> first officer is sucked out, well, that was just ridiculous. Even the
> special effects looked like they pulled a rag doll out the window.
> They clearly weren't even trying with the details. It only got worse
> when they used a helicopter to lower in a new pilot through the hole.
>
> I'll say this, though, my odd preoccupation throughout Airport 1975
> was for that poor Baron pilot and his wife. I kept thinking, they're
> gonna blame that guy for everything: pilot error, loss of control in
> IMC, etc -- when really his only piloting mistake was expiring at the
> controls. Who's to blame for that, his AME? He actually had shown good
> judgment earlier in the film by landing to let a line pass.
>
> Anyway, it all fits in well with the four directives of flying:
> aviate, navigate, communicate, blame the dead guy
>
> Thank you for indulging me in this pointless post! :)
>
> -- dave j

OK, so now you have no choice but to watch "Airplane", which is the
spoof of all the "Airport" movies. It is a much better movie, and a
riot! I especially loved the "Otto" pilot with the strategically
located inflation tube for the Flight Attendent to blow into!

Say, does anyone speak jive?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Dave J wrote:
> Fair enough. For the record I was as-yet unborn when the first film
> came out, and not long walking for the second. In my opinion, though,
> some shots might have been better left out altogether, leaving it to
> the imagination.
>
> I'll also say this about the generation gap. I clearly missed the days
> when people dressed up to fly, or when flight attendants flirted with
> anybody.

I remember when almost all of them were women that you would want to have
flirt with you.

[Ron Natalie]

wrote:

>
> OK, so now you have no choice but to watch "Airplane", which is the
> spoof of all the "Airport" movies. It is a much better movie, and a
> riot! I especially loved the "Otto" pilot with the strategically
> located inflation tube for the Flight Attendent to blow into!

Oddly, Airplane's plot comes from the movie Zero Hour which itself made
from another Arthur Hailey book, Runway 08.

>
> Say, does anyone speak jive?
>
>

Cold, got to be!

[150flivver]

PAR minimums were lower than an ILS back in the good old days!

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> OK, so now you have no choice but to watch "Airplane", which is the
> spoof of all the "Airport" movies.

All of the Airport movies are funny when first watched after viewing "Airplane"

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Dallas]

On 19 Apr 2007 13:02:20 -0700, Dave J wrote:

> I'll also say this about the generation gap. I clearly missed the days
> when people dressed up to fly

I'm old enough to remember the first time I saw a guy wearing a T-shirt get
on an airplane with me.

I blame Southwest Airlines for making air travel available to the
proletariats.

:-)
--
Dallas

[Mxsmanic]

Dave J writes:

> I'll also say this about the generation gap. I clearly missed the days
> when people dressed up to fly, or when flight attendants flirted with
> anybody.

I don't know that there was ever a time when flight attendants routinely
flirted with anyone, unless their employer requested it (not inconceivable in
the old days).

People dressed up because air travel was too expensive to be undertaken
routinely, and so any trip on an airplane was a special occasion. However,
during the same era, people dressed up a lot more for all sorts of occasions.
As little as forty years ago, many American women still felt a need to wear
gloves when going out.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> I remember when almost all of them were women that you would want to have
> flirt with you.

They are the same women today.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave J writes:

> Ah! Maybe I'll read the book sometime. I have a feeling it'll have
> more realistic detail fir aviation junkies!

It's out of print, unfortunately. I've been looking around for it for a
while. I actually read it while on a domestic leg of an overseas flight on
TWA--in first class, come to think of it. Today you'd probably be arrested
for reading it on a plane.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> OK, so now you have no choice but to watch "Airplane", which is the
> spoof of all the "Airport" movies. It is a much better movie, and a
> riot!

_Airplane_ is a parody of _Zero Hour_, a little known, serious movie with a
simular plot to which the producers of _Airplane_ bought the rights.

Since more people have seen _Airport_, however, many assume that _Airplane_
parodies the movie. But _Airport_ involved a crazy passenger with a bomb,
whereas _Zero Hour_ and _Airplane_ involved food poisoning.

_Airport_ was an excellent movie, although the book was even better.
Unfortunately, with so many parodies and mediocre disaster movies around, it's
hard to watch _Airport_ today without smiling.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> I remember when almost all of them were women that you would want to have
>> flirt with you.
>
> They are the same women today.


indeed. But we (macho chauvinistic pigs) were hoping that they would have
retired by now and replaced by younger / attractive generations :-)

ok, I am ducking now,

--Sylvain

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> indeed. But we (macho chauvinistic pigs) were hoping that they would have
> retired by now and replaced by younger / attractive generations :-)

In the early days of aviation there were mostly young FAs because aviation was
itself too young to produce old FAs, at least in any quantity.

Now, decades later, there have been many thousands of FAs working for decades
and so the number of older FAs with substantial seniority has greatly
increased. For FAs, seniority is everything, since once one has learned to
carry out the job competently, there are no other criteria of advancement (the
job can only be done so well).

Seniority is important for pilots, too, but there are other factors. Piloting
is a job in which one learns indefinitely from experience, so that's a factor.
Also, pilots are required to retire at a fairly young age, which prevents
seniority from becoming too much of an issue.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dave J writes:
>
>> Ah! Maybe I'll read the book sometime. I have a feeling it'll have
>> more realistic detail fir aviation junkies!
>
> It's out of print, unfortunately. I've been looking around for it for
> a while.

To bump up your already vast knowledge, no doubt.


I suspect most of what you know is form these crappy movies....



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:

> _Airport_ was an excellent movie, although the book was even better.
> Unfortunately, with so many parodies and mediocre disaster movies
> around, it's hard to watch _Airport_ today without smiling.


No it was drivel. You thinking it was good in any way goes a long way
towards explaining your idiotic view of flying.


Berti

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Sylvain writes:
>
>> indeed. But we (macho chauvinistic pigs) were hoping that they would
>> have retired by now and replaced by younger / attractive generations
>> :-)
>
> In the early days of aviation there were mostly young FAs because
> aviation was itself too young to produce old FAs, at least in any
> quantity.

Nope, wrong again.

Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,


In article >,
> wrote:
> Piloting is a job in which one learns indefinitely from experience

Nobody else spot this little gem? Seems like a bit of an about face to me.

Andy

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sylvain writes:
>
>> indeed. But we (macho chauvinistic pigs) were hoping that they
>> would have retired by now and replaced by younger / attractive
>> generations :-)
>
> In the early days of aviation there were mostly young FAs because
> aviation was itself too young to produce old FAs, at least in any
> quantity.
>
> Now, decades later, there have been many thousands of FAs working for
> decades and so the number of older FAs with substantial seniority has
> greatly increased. For FAs, seniority is everything, since once one
> has learned to carry out the job competently, there are no other
> criteria of advancement (the job can only be done so well).
>
> Seniority is important for pilots, too, but there are other factors.
> Piloting is a job in which one learns indefinitely from experience,
> so that's a factor. Also, pilots are required to retire at a fairly
> young age, which prevents seniority from becoming too much of an
> issue.


DATA POINT
This morning on NPR they did their weekly series where one person interviews
another. Ususally an adult child or grandchild interviewing a parent or
grandparent. This morning it was a son interviewing his mother who was hired
as a stewerdess fro Delta in 1949. She had to quit (airline rule at the
time) when she got married.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-04-19, Dave J > wrote:
> The second movie, where a Baron hits the cockpit of a 747 and the

In a flash of cruel irony, if I remember right, the Baron used in that
film really did end up crashing in a mid air collision a few years
later....

....indeed, the NTSB report is here
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X29141&key=2

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-04-19, Bob Noel > wrote:
> All of the Airport movies are funny when first watched after viewing "Airplane"

Now watch "Zero Hour" through the lens of "Airplane". The main character
in Zero Hour is even called Ted Striker.

It's so bad it's good.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Mark T. Dame]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> wrote:
>>
>> Say, does anyone speak jive?
>>
>
> Cold, got to be!

Golly!


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## CP-ASEL, AGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"One of the best ways to measure people is to watch the way they
behave when something free is offered."
-- Ann Landers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Sylvain writes:
>>
>>> indeed. But we (macho chauvinistic pigs) were hoping that they
>>> would have retired by now and replaced by younger / attractive
>>> generations :-)
>>
>> In the early days of aviation there were mostly young FAs because
>> aviation was itself too young to produce old FAs, at least in any
>> quantity.
>>
>> Now, decades later, there have been many thousands of FAs working for
>> decades and so the number of older FAs with substantial seniority has
>> greatly increased. For FAs, seniority is everything, since once one
>> has learned to carry out the job competently, there are no other
>> criteria of advancement (the job can only be done so well).
>>
>> Seniority is important for pilots, too, but there are other factors.
>> Piloting is a job in which one learns indefinitely from experience,
>> so that's a factor. Also, pilots are required to retire at a fairly
>> young age, which prevents seniority from becoming too much of an
>> issue.
>
>
> DATA POINT
> This morning on NPR they did their weekly series where one person
> interviews another. Ususally an adult child or grandchild interviewing
> a parent or grandparent. This morning it was a son interviewing his
> mother who was hired as a stewerdess fro Delta in 1949. She had to
> quit (airline rule at the time) when she got married.

Proper order too.

Bertie

[Scott Skylane]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2007-04-19, Dave J > wrote:
>
>>The second movie, where a Baron hits the cockpit of a 747 and the
>
>
> In a flash of cruel irony, if I remember right, the Baron used in that
> film really did end up crashing in a mid air collision a few years
> later....
>
> ...indeed, the NTSB report is here
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X29141&key=2
>
Man, speaking about contractions and abbreviations, what the *heck* is
up with that NTSB report????

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Jim Logajan]

Scott Skylane > wrote:
> Dylan Smith wrote:
>> ...indeed, the NTSB report is here
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X29141&key=2
>>
> Man, speaking about contractions and abbreviations, what the *heck* is
> up with that NTSB report????

Now we know where text-messaging abbreviations originated. ;-)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dave J writes:
>
>> It's bad form to follow up one's own post, but I thought I would
>> mention that the first film (Airport) ends with a PAR approach. It
>> might be worth it to rent and fast-forward just to see that. I've
>> practiced one in my life with a very bored controller at Travis AFB,
>> if I remember correctly, but it went like the movie, except the
>> controller gave me relative turns (left 5 degree, right 5 degrees)
>> not bearings (left to 285) like in the movie.
>
> I've never figured out why the pilots ask for a PAR approach in that
> movie.

Because you're an idiot, that's why.


Bertie

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Scott Skylane" > wrote in message
...
> Dylan Smith wrote:
>> On 2007-04-19, Dave J > wrote:
>>
>>>The second movie, where a Baron hits the cockpit of a 747 and the
>>
>>
>> In a flash of cruel irony, if I remember right, the Baron used in that
>> film really did end up crashing in a mid air collision a few years
>> later....
>>
>> ...indeed, the NTSB report is here
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X29141&key=2
>>
> Man, speaking about contractions and abbreviations, what the *heck* is up
> with that NTSB report????
>

SOTA 1989?