negreanu

How exactly.

I have measured the speaker distance to the reference seating point and set that int he system in meters.

The unit provides a white noise tone from each speaker in turn to let you adjust the +/- db.

I have got hold of a sound meter and understand that the sound from each speaker should be set to 75db or thereabouts.

Now the issue I have is during the setup tones to measure at 75db. The master volume of the unit is still changeable so 75db is obtainable by increasing master volume. It would make sense to me that the master volume is disabled during this setup process but it is not...

So what do I set the master volume at on the surround system......confused...

We are an advanced species.

Man will always try just to have a sneaky look at whats available under the skirt.

Where as most other male animals on the planet would just stick their nose in it and sniff....

Which would they prefer?

The wife and I went for the first time yesterday for lunch. Location sucks as walking down Soi 11 from Sukhumvit is a pain. To me Soi 11 is one of the worst in the area. Inside the music was too loud which forced customers to shout ar each other and this made it very uncomfortable and was not able to relax and enjoy my meal. The cheese burger I ordered was average and overpriced. Also had the chocolate milkshake and it had a weird chalk taste. The wife had a couple of Thai dishes which one she could not eat. The Pork was bad. Also, she was given a dirty spoon which had to be replaced. Not going back.

Agree it was <deleted> yesterday. Mrs refuses to go back but I was prepared to give it another go.... But the more I think about it The less chance I will.

My experience and the above posters. Restaurants just cannot afford to do that in the Bangkok Market place. Consistency, quality and service are so important.

We were not huge spenders there but all the times we went we spend around 2500-3000thb for lunch. Not bad for lunchtime customers.

Chocolate milk shake was made by one of the new waitresses that hadn't a <deleted> clue what was going on never mind how to make a milkshake...

I give it 6 months unless there is a dramatic turnaround. hope they read this thread.

They should give a 2000thb voucher to all yesterdays lunch time diners as an apology

DELETED

This is my third time there and mrs and I were fairly impressed before but if this is the start of the fall in quality and service they better get their act together.

I got the impression the 2 kitchen staff were swamped as well. Realistically running 8 tables with what is a fairly extensive menu with 2 on the grill, combined with a manager not managing and 2 inexperienced waitresses......rethink time.

My burger arrived 15 mins before the mrs and the nanny's Thai food. Thats my pet hate in most establishments in Thailand the lack of the kitchen to prepare a table in one go.

Will i go back - yes one last time.

Ref milkshake (After 20mins of waiting they then came back and said no Vanilla milkshake! 15 mins later the chocolate one arrived......No vanilla milkshake in a american diner - really??)

And no need for the volume 97 on the sound system for lunch mid-week. 2 tables next to ours were business lunches or office diners and trying to talk business discuss office dealings might have been a tad annoying.

Waitresses today haven't a <deleted> clue what they are doing. Never seen the 2 on today probably new. But hence he manager should be in control...

Dont't go to today it's crap. 25mins waiting for drinks. 35 mins waiting for milk shake.

2 waitresses 8 tables of diners. Manager just sat doing paperwork at top of restaurant rather than assisting..the unable to cope waitresses.

Music is deafening today also. Shame because last visit it wasn't bad at all...

Average. QR much better.

Try Jet airways to london not bad for for 77k.

Flight Experience

Those franchises are appearing everywhere. Wonder who owns the BKK one.

10,000THB withdrawn on Amex (Singapore Charge Card yesterday) 441.46SGD. Not exactly without cost.....

Call me crazy...but I'd like the pilot landing my 777 to have at least assisted in at least some prior landings at the destination airport in the type of jet being flown before being handed over primary controls.

In the ideal world. Sadly that has never been the reality or never will. Its not a requirement.

The earlier post I responded to says they are comparing it to Air France 447 because it is another case of the pilots forgetting the basics when something goes wrong with the automation. I don't accept that premise for the 777 accident, which happened in clear daylight on final approach under full control.

Really? Are you aware of which Flight modes (Automation) were engaged or not engaged at the time of the incident. Was the automation at that point set incorrectly for the situation - AThrust mode ? FLCH mode?

Automation may yet play a role in this incident. Don't forget automation failure is different to automation mis-selection or mis-understanding of the system all could lead to a incident.

Clear day does not mean no automation modes are engaged. Ref Vertical profile management and Thrust control and lateral guidance.

The information will be released in due course.

I find it hard to draw a comparison with them as you have.

He is commenting basically on human-automation interaction with advanced aircraft. And subsequently the modern day airline pilots abilities to operate the aircraft without automation due to failure or otherwise.

Like AF 447 this accident appears to be another shocking example of airline pilots forgetting (or never having really learned) the basics when something goes wrong with the automation.

Its a hot topic in the industry at the moment. As aircraft systems develop and are ever more complex. Crews dependance on automation is a concern. Most airlines are now recognising this and implementing appropriate training regimes in the crews recurrent training programs.

The PAPI's are indeed not required however they are of great assistance to the widebody airliner crew in making a visual approach.

Nobody talks about the real culprit as it seems, the airport (management).

There are reports that some important safety tools/-systems have been stopped functioning since several weeks, i.e.

- Precision Approach Path Indicator ( PAPI)

- flare path (for the right approach angle)

PAPI's were serviceable according to NTSB briefing.

Secondly the Glideslope was unserviceable and details were published of that (Localiser fully serviceable).

Now even if the glide slope is unserviceable. The crew are fully trained to fly non precision approaches. Note that a lot of international destinations at major airports do not even have a ILS facility (Localiser and Glideslope) installation and pilots have a range of choices for non precison approach methods.

The talk of the airport being a culprit due to a unserviceable NOTAM'd glideslope. Not really, It is possibly a factor in the "Big picture" but I would not accuse them as being a culprit.

It is NORMAL procedure for crews to make approaches without a ILS and not uncommon and crews are trained for it.

Final responsibility lies with the commander of the aircraft. He would assess the airport's facilities and weather bearing in mind the facilities available to him and then make the decision whether to make an approach at that particular airport or not.

the safety of the flight WAS comprised

This statement I agree with. Why we will have to wait and see and what factors were involved.

Pilot error certainly seems to be a likely prominent factor in the end judgment. It will be interesting to ultimately see how much blame is apportioned to various of the different potential causal factors for the crash.

most aircraft incidents/accidents are a combination of several factors and the majority fall into the Swiss cheese model.

Except, one or more of those qualified guys appear to have crashed the plane.

100% safety in any form of transportation is unobtainable. With or without human input.

However the airline industry is one that works 24/7 to strive for that 100%.

Boeing should be praised for the design of the B777 and the amount of people that it has protected during the worst case scenarios of this incident and the BA LHR B777 incident. A truly awesome airplane which continually receives praise for the flightdeck crew and engineering who work with it.

May sound fine to you, but doesn't sound very reassuring to me.

As an individual you make analysis of everything you do and you personally assess your risk when making a choice to use transportation or not.

People are highly (unfairly??) critical when a aircraft incident occurs to the industry.

Partly the reason that we are so highly regulated and professional that incidents are rare that the those outside the industry see it as such a safe form of transport when a infrequent incident does occur people are shocked and angry because its perceived as so safe thanks to the work of those involved.

Have a think next time you step into a bangkok taxi to the airport with no seatbelts in the back seat doing 140km/h down the expressway. Or that Minibus trip to Udon Thani during songkran... Risk analysis

I hate to use the term but It is still the safest form of transport due to the professionalism and the regulation.

Is there someminimum level of simulator and flight-deck-crew-only training that is required before they are allowed 'go live', so to speak?

Yes.

See previous post above is a simplified approximation of what will occur for airline training for conversion onto a specific aircraft type.

Frankly, at this point, I'm beyond the 'training' issue. I'm thinking negligent homicide or manslaughter charges. People died in that crash and others were critically injured, no matter how it's spun by the media or the airline industry. It wouldn't be the first time:

Sadly accidents do occur on every type of transportation, whether road, air, sea, train. Going forward the investigation will conclude and the professionals in the industry will analyse it and learn from the incident to make future flights safer for all.

If true, I'm wondering how radio power was maintained. Any Boeing 777 systems experts to explain radio power sourcing? Perhaps the APU was running or there is a battery/inverter source, since they apparently lost both engines (one literally) shortly after belly-down?

Aircraft Batteries provide power to VHF 1. APU was missing as per the Tail. Engines APU will have been shutdown and secured and fire agents discharged as per procedure. Batteries will be selected off shortly afterwards.

I'd be curious to know what Asiana's policies are on what level of direct experience a pilot needs to have on a particular aircraft and a particular arrival airport before they're put in the captain's chair for landings...

From a passenger perspective, if someone told me the pilot handling my flight's landing on a transcontinental flight had only 43 hours total flight time in my 777 jet and hadn't previously captained that jet to my destination airport, I might not feel the greatest level of confidence.

One word Simulators. Category D Full Flight Simulators.

It is possible that your Captain on a flight these days has ZERO hours flying the actual aircraft on your international flight. (Zero Flight Time Conversion) But of course the flight deck will have a Training Captain along and authority/airline policy depending a third qualified pilot for safety.

Relax have another gin and tonic and enjoy the IFE. Don't worry the guys up the front of your 777 are all qualified and meet all aviation authority and airline experience requirements.

A lot of passengers think that the flight deck crew must have flown into their destination airport SF in this case before. Not necessary for most airports (There are a few exceptions in the world). Whether flown in to that airport before on any aircraft type or flown in to the airport before on current aircraft type - basically irrelevant.

If Asiana was using this flight as a training flight, the least the company should have done was inform the passengers before the flight that it was going to be a training flight, and that a discount would be offered due to the higher risk of the flight......

See above post.

I'll simplify it (A lot - This is not airline specific but approximations)

By the time a pilots Airline training has reached the section of training carrying passengers on a commercial sector he will:

1. Completed 2-4 weeks of ground based study of aircraft systems and other airline policy etc.

2. Completed 1 week of fixed base simulator sessions.

3. Completed 2 weeks of Simulator training on the aircraft type

4. Completed simulator tests by aviation authority authorised examiner

5. Possibly completed a certain amount of Takeoff and landings on actual aircraft (Depends on a number of factors whether this is necessary)

6. Will only fly with Airline Training Captains and possibly safety pilots for the first few sector. Then will continue to fly with Training Captains for a certain amount sectors. Before further test and release from training.

Now remember that is just the airline training. Prior to joining the airline he will obviously obtained a Professional airline licence (exams, flight tests etc. which are not easy and can take 18 months in the quickest option) and possibly many hours experience on smaller aircraft types. His experience and flight time must meet aviation authority and airline requirements before he would even be considered for the position with an airline.

In conclusion just because a commercial flight has training occurring on the flight deck in no way compromises the safety of the flight.

Not to me. When it is ever a good idea to train a pilot, even when supervised, with over 300 passengers and crew on board? Whatever the state of the pilot's skills on type or CRM (Cockpit Resource Management), the end result is telling.

What? You have no idea what you are talking about with regard to Airline Training procedures or how the training course for conversion/upgrade/recurrent training is constructed and implemented.

Line training with passengers happens everyday in airline operations....Its nothing new and will always be that way.

You will have been on flights with pilots under training as a passenger more times than you imagine. Its a normal approved part of a pilots training... probably 25% or more of all airline flights per day are training / checking.

The media picking up that he had never flown into SF on that particular aircraft is quite frankly irrelevant.

CRM (Cockpit Resource Management)

It's actually Crew Resource Management.... CRM is not confined to the flightdeck.

This approach at max landing weight would have required a descent rate of approx 700ft per minute. If you have started off high then it's a challenge as time is compressed the closer you get to the runway. Boeing commonly refer to the safest course of action in their documentation, so possibly in this case a go around would have been a more appropriate decision to make.

Dude they just flew from incheon to San Fran. Its no where near max landing weight

The only reason I mentioned wind shear / micro-burst is because that is the only thing that would cause an aircraft to rapidly lose altitude on final.

Plus hundreds of other possibilities. From mechanical failure of numerous systems, Pilot error, Weather, contamination, Ingestion....

The Thaivisa armchair aviation experts come out in floods with their speculation as to what happened.

I work in the industry and have done for 20 years. I am pretty familiar with the aircraft type involved, systems, weather and general SOP of airline operations (I am not familiar with specific Asiana SOP's as i think most are not unless you are currently employed by them).

Considering the above, with the information known I could not even attempt to piece together the scenario here at this stage. But our TV boys can - excellent work!

Lets just wait for the preliminary eh? ......

On the plus side boeing built a damn strong airplane with B777. As per this incident and BA. Now how would the composite B787 hold up in a similar event....

meanwhile here is the ATC, probably a little hard to follow unless your one our TV Experts:

http://wandr.me/Audio/AAR214-KSFO-Crash.mp3

Most will include insurance, mats, film. When they are pressured slightly.

Just say you will buy it today if you include the above - they will disappear to chat with Sales Manager then come back with a yeh or nay.

if your good you might get persuade them to through in some Mugen or Modulo. (Mats, Films. Modulo hard to get them above 20k worth but still possible).

Cash discount not so easy. If you can show a deal from another dealer a lot will price match that deal or try to beat it if you will buy it right there and then.