Airport and Airport 1975

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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