Re: News: Volcanoes Bad For Airplanes

[CovvTseTung]

In article >, Aratzio
says...

>
> In an amazing overstatement of the incredibly obvious, Alaska Airlines
> spokeswoman Mariann Lindsey has stated:
>
> "The state of Alaska has many active volcanoes, we try to avoid them
> because they affect airplane engines"
>
> Yes, folks, large pieces of rock firmly (and not so firmly) attached
> to earth are considered a bad thing for an airplane engine.
>
> No word was given on how passengers or the rest of the aircraft are
> affected by volcanoes.
>
> http://www.forbes.com/markets/2008/08/11/alaska-airlines-oil-markets-equity-cx_lal_0811markets22.html
>
> or
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/6gp4zy

You really ought to share this with Bertie and the boys.

rap added

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[Blanche]

Yes, the rocks are a problem. But more critical is the ash floating
in the atmosphere. The Navy did a study back in the 70s and discovered
that the ash completely fouled all mechanical equipment - car & truck
engines in particular. They had to be completely stripped down and
cleaned before usable.

[Aratzio]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:12:42 -0500, in
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Tim Weaver >
bloviated:

>Blanche wrote:
>
>> Yes, the rocks are a problem. But more critical is the ash floating
>> in the atmosphere. The Navy did a study back in the 70s and discovered
>> that the ash completely fouled all mechanical equipment - car & truck
>> engines in particular. They had to be completely stripped down and
>> cleaned before usable.
>
>Why would any of this be of interest to the military? Don't they just hold
>a gun over their heads while running for a couple of hours, then call it a
>day?

You are confusing the USAF with the military.

[Aratzio]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:23:49 -0500, in
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Tim Weaver >
bloviated:

>Aratzio wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:12:42 -0500, in
>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Tim Weaver >
>> bloviated:
>>
>>>Blanche wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, the rocks are a problem. But more critical is the ash floating
>>>> in the atmosphere. The Navy did a study back in the 70s and discovered
>>>> that the ash completely fouled all mechanical equipment - car & truck
>>>> engines in particular. They had to be completely stripped down and
>>>> cleaned before usable.
>>>
>>>Why would any of this be of interest to the military? Don't they just
>>>hold a gun over their heads while running for a couple of hours, then
>>>call it a day?
>>
>> You are confusing the USAF with the military.
>
>Which is part of the military. Sheesh...

Only in the sense that they are under the DoD. Imagining that the USAF
runs around with guns is just silly.

[Aratzio]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:43:02 -0500, in
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Tim Weaver >
bloviated:

>Aratzio wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:23:49 -0500, in
>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Tim Weaver >
>> bloviated:
>>
>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:12:42 -0500, in
>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Tim Weaver >
>>>> bloviated:
>>>>
>>>>>Blanche wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, the rocks are a problem. But more critical is the ash floating
>>>>>> in the atmosphere. The Navy did a study back in the 70s and discovered
>>>>>> that the ash completely fouled all mechanical equipment - car & truck
>>>>>> engines in particular. They had to be completely stripped down and
>>>>>> cleaned before usable.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why would any of this be of interest to the military? Don't they just
>>>>>hold a gun over their heads while running for a couple of hours, then
>>>>>call it a day?
>>>>
>>>> You are confusing the USAF with the military.
>>>
>>>Which is part of the military. Sheesh...
>>
>> Only in the sense that they are under the DoD. Imagining that the USAF
>> runs around with guns is just silly.
>
>Planes have guns. So, they just hold planes over their heads and run. Same
>thing.
>
>And are you trying to say that in all of the USAF not one person has so much
>as one side arm?

They all have one arm on each side.

But as a general rule USAF are weaponless. They are issued weapons
over in the ME and get some additional training but mostly they are
just support for the aircraft outside the ME. AP have weapons and a
few other ops types.

They are using USAF types for convoy guards in Iraq. When USAF are
carrying weapons in semi-combat situations you are pretty much ****ed.
I know I would not want to be any sort of army/marine combat type and
know that usaf have live personal weapons near me.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Aratzio wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:23:49 -0500, in
> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Tim Weaver >
> bloviated:
>
>> Aratzio wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:12:42 -0500, in
>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Tim Weaver >
>>> bloviated:
>>>
>>>> Blanche wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, the rocks are a problem. But more critical is the ash floating
>>>>> in the atmosphere. The Navy did a study back in the 70s and discovered
>>>>> that the ash completely fouled all mechanical equipment - car & truck
>>>>> engines in particular. They had to be completely stripped down and
>>>>> cleaned before usable.
>>>> Why would any of this be of interest to the military? Don't they just
>>>> hold a gun over their heads while running for a couple of hours, then
>>>> call it a day?
>>> You are confusing the USAF with the military.
>> Which is part of the military. Sheesh...
>
> Only in the sense that they are under the DoD. Imagining that the USAF
> runs around with guns is just silly.


http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1281461.html

Tell that to these guys.