richard_smith237

Come on, the high horse phrase is starting to sound like a broken record. Stop coming the raw prawn.

The statement was made by Joo Jong-wan, aviation policy chief at the Ministry of Transport, at a press briefing this morning. I would suggest he has a better information and data, than basing an assumption on a few Youtube videos! I would suggest ronnie50 is correct and the term 'veered off' is a poor translation... There is no 'assumption' to be made based on a few Youtube videos, there is clear observation. The aircraft hit the 'localiser concrete base' which is in line with the runway. IF the air-craft have 'veered off' the runway, it would have missed the 'concrete base' potentially rendering the crash far less devastating.

Nope they don't.. Its just coincidental that three have occurred this week, there is no pattern other than one imagined...

What's weird about Jeju ???... Its an Island about 3x the size of Phuket, located south of Mainland South Korea - Calling an Airline Jeju Air, i.e. after a place is no different than calling an airline Bangkok Airways or Phuket Air. What is weird is the distorted mentality of some who have no idea how silly their remarks are.

In which case consider the Jeju air tragedy whereby the two sole survivors were cabin crew seated in the tail of the aircraft.

You think the earth is flat, your assurances are somewhat empty. I would argue that you exhibit the tendencies of a contrarian science denier, perhaps even playing the role of a provocative devil's advocate. I struggle to fathom how someone capable of articulating arguments so skillfully could harbor such a profound distrust in science. There is overwhelming scientific evidence supports the Earth's movement in space. The Foucault Pendulum experiment (1851) demonstrates Earth's rotation. A freely swinging pendulum changes its plane of oscillation due to Earth's rotation, a phenomenon that cannot be explained without a rotating Earth. Stellar Parallax, first measured in 1838 by Friedrich Bessel, provides clear evidence of Earth's orbit around the Sun. The apparent shift in position of nearby stars against the background of distant stars occurs only because Earth changes its position in space. Galileo's persecution by the Church is a well-documented historical fact. While he may have been celebrated early on, his advocacy for heliocentrism led to the trial and his house arrest, as confirmed by primary historical documents from the 17th century such as.... Galileo’s Trial Documents (1633), Acts of the Holy Office (Archivio della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, Vatican). The trial records, including interrogations and verdicts, document Galileo's prosecution for his book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632), which argued for heliocentrism. The Church accused Galileo of violating the 1616 decree by promoting heliocentrism as fact, not merely as a hypothesis. The formal sentence from June 22, 1633, condemned Galileo to house arrest and required him to recant his views. Consequently, Galileo, under threat of torture, was forced to recant his heliocentric beliefs in a formal ceremony. His oath of abjuration survives and reads: "I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies..." There was also the Correspondence with Cardinal Bellarmine, a letter from Cardinal Bellarmine to Galileo (1615) which clarified the Church’s position on heliocentrism and warned Galileo not to defend it as fact. This letter reflects the Church's initial caution toward Galileo. There are records from the Inquisition, namely The Manuscript of the Deposition (1632–1633) containing testimonies from officials of the Roman Inquisition and Galileo himself . These outline the charges and evidence presented against Galileo, including his writings and the Church's interpretation of Scripture. Then there is the Papal decree and enforcement; Pope Papal Bull (Urban VIII) approved the trial and supported the Inquisition's sentence against Galileo. His opposition to Galileo was partially influenced by personal and political grievances. There are also additional sources, such as “Galileo’s Daughter” by Dava Sobel and “The Crime of Galileo” by Giorgio de Santillana which provide detailed accounts based on the primary documents listed above. Additionally, The Vatican’s 1965 publication of trial documents in Documenti del Processo di Galileo makes many of these records publicly accessible. The quotes you have provided, are either taken out of context or reflect philosophical musings rather than empirical conclusions. For example, Stephen Hawking's comment in The Grand Design about models refers to the philosophical nature of frameworks, not evidence against heliocentrism. Modern physics overwhelmingly supports a heliocentric model. But, to go back on your comment regarding experiments carried out in the 18th and19th and centuries: There is modern evidence beyond the classical experiments. - Satellite technology, such as the Global Positioning System (GPS), requires precise calculations that account for Earth's rotation and orbit. These technologies are direct, practical proof of Earth's motion. - The CMB dipole anisotropy, detected by the COBE satellite, shows Earth's motion relative to the cosmic microwave background. Finally, your claim that experiments during the 18th and 19th centuries, such as those by François Arago, disproved the heliocentric model and were "memory-holed" is demonstrably false. François Arago's work focused on light's behavior, particularly its refraction, polarisation, and speed, which supported the wave theory of light and did not challenge heliocentrism. On the contrary, key experiments from that period reinforced heliocentrism such as... - Stellar parallax, first measured by Friedrich Bessel in 1838, provided direct evidence of Earth's orbit by observing the apparent shift in nearby stars relative to the background stars. - Similarly, the Foucault Pendulum (1851) demonstrated Earth's rotation, and stellar aberration, discovered earlier by James Bradley, confirmed Earth's motion through space. - The Michelson-Morley experiment (1887), while initially designed to detect the "aether," supported the consistent speed of light in all directions, aligning with Earth's motion and later explained by Einstein's relativity. Far from being suppressed, these experiments were widely documented and remain foundational in modern physics. Assertions of "memory-holing" are baseless.

Your figures (which you've taken from Compare the Market website). UK Yearly accidents 2022: 333,296 / 913 per day https://www.comparethemarket.com/car-insurance/news/road-traffic-accidents/ In 2022 the UK had: 1,695 road fatalities, Thailand Yearly accidents 2023: 939,713 / 2574 per day https://www.nationthailand.com/thailand/general/40023780?utm_source=chatgpt.com In 2023 the Thailand had: 14,737 road fatalities (in reality this figure is closer to 20,000 according to WHO estimates) Accidents Involving 4-Wheeled+ Vehicles As there no stats separating motorcycle accidents we have to 'assume that the proportion of accidents involving 4-wheeled+ vehicles matches their proportion in the total vehicle population. UK (96% of registered vehicles are 4 wheels or more) Accidents Involving 4-Wheeled+ Vehicles = 333,296 × 0.96 = 319,964 Thailand (33% of registered vehicles are 4 wheels or more) Accidents Involving 4-Wheeled+ Vehicles = 939,713 × 0.33 = 310,105 Fatality Rate per Accident for 4-Wheeled+ Vehicles Fatality Rate per Accident (UK) = 1,345 / 319,964 = 0.0042 fatalities per accident. Fatality Rate per Accident (Thailand) = 4,000 / 310,105 = 0.0129 fatalities per accident. The results reflect the proportionate involvement of 4-wheeled+ vehicles in accidents and highlight that the fatality rate per accident for Thailand is ~ 3x the UK. You quoted Benjamin Disraeli; "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".. and the above information paints with a very board brush, nevertheless a picture is painted. Also note - people tend not to wear seatbelts in Thailand which also heavily impacts Thailands fatality statics and may also account for the 3x factor of deaths. But already the above information places the Thailand statistic a lot closer to the UK statistic than your TWELVE times... You studied road safety stats for 30 years you say ???... you completely ignored the proportional difference between motorcycles and cars between countries when making your comparison. You'll never admit that though, for contrary to what you post you are arguing a point and have in fact presented distorted stats to fit your conclusion. Below is an example of your Bias: The number you quoted is less than half of what is quoted by the nation. You fail to mention that the number of reported accidents might be higher for Thailand too, as not all accidents are reported. In fact as I pointed out earlier in the thread - the amount of reported accidents in the UK is probably much higher because of insurance excess - particularly minor accidents. Whereas in Thailand, its likely the amount of reported accidents is much higher because fewer people have insurance full stop.

1) Unless the antenna is bent - the image below shows the lens distortion flattening the horizon. 2) The lens distortion is such that the horizon appears slightly concave, further confirming lens distortion. Using this 121,000 ft altitude video is an extremely weak attempt to try and squeeze out any validity for the flat earth idea - surely you can see the basic flaws [rattlesnake] ?

Of course... but not because 'the scale is too vast to grasp' but because the scale is too vast to distinguish any discernible movement over such a short time span of humanity. You seem to be criticising people resorting to 'fact' as a weakness - of course you are arguing that fact, but this discussion then gets as silly as arguing with someone who believes were in a digital construct. This is incorrect. So far, nobody has rationally explained the footage of a level surface visible at 121,000 feet, one poster even stating that "science" says the curve should be visible at 35,000… and then defaulting to the notion that the deception would be too big to accept before moving on to another aspect of the issue, leaving this one unresolved. Lens distortion is often used by flat earthers to argue against any image which shows the curvature of the earth. Equally, so for the same reasons, accusations of lens distortion of any image which shows a level horizon at 121,000 feet can also be argued. I'll show this in the the next post I make using screenshots from the 121,000 ft video. Field of view is also another reason, without a wide enough field of view, the horizon can appear flat. Wider perspectives show more curvature. This is anecdotal - however, I have a close friend who flew Concorde and saw the curvature of the Earth first hand at 60,000 feet (or thereabouts) - I trust his observations. The post-Reformation historical context does not demonstrate that the adoption of the heliocentric model was driven solely by political and ideological reasons. Instead, the switch to heliocentrism emerged primarily from advancements in observational astronomy, mathematics, and the scientific method. Pioneers like Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, and Johannes Kepler provided empirical evidence and mathematical models that challenged the geocentric worldview, such as the phases of Venus and the elliptical orbits of planets. The transition to heliocentrism was fundamentally rooted in a scientific revolution rather than being a premeditated political or ideological scheme.

They were cabin crew. Must have been in the very back behind the passenger seats. Yep.. I'm wondering what saved them vs the last row of passengers... i.e. could the bulkhead have provided additional strength etc, or seated backwards made the difference... closest to the door and those seconds mattered ?

Imagine the survivors horror as everyone you have interacted with for the past 4 hours is now dead.. (bar one person)... I'd imagine thats going to be tough to deal with, even in light of the euphoria of surviving. I'm sure we'll find out in due course.. But I wonder where 'in the tail' section of the air-craft they were seated and why they survived while everyone else tragically perished.

At speed, the rudder can counteract the yaw caused by reverse thrust from one engine. As an aircraft slow's the rudder would be less effective... This air-craft did not slow, so I'm guessing its possible that the reverse thrust and yaw from one engine could have been counteracted by the pilot (using the rudder)... If the reverse thrust from one engine was used at all.

Well thats that then... Cleary the foreigners fault because you saw two incidents of foreigners getting annoyed....

There are no young men who use it ?

Thanks.. that makes a lot more sense, I can see that now in the 'Pilot Vid' (posted above)... The localiser base is raised about 10 ft... Solid concrete....

Other than the car itself !!... But, yep, operationally, its a good buy. On the maintenance side of things.... The reason I didn't get a Tesla is due to the lack of dealership support. I'm not sure what happens if something goes wrong.. I read that they send engineers out to you, but there can be waiting lists etc. Thus: With Neta - is there any dealership - how does one get the brake pads renewed etc ? Me too... though I have an EV and like them... I would have bought the same car if it were an ICE because I liked the actual car. Some are very 'Anti-EV' and present really daft comments that highlight an irrational negative prejudice. But, others are so gushingly 'Pro-EV' they attract detractors due to their presentation of unwavering bias.

I am not anti-EV. I have consistently acknowledged EV's have major advantages in some attributes. The standard ICE warranty is 5 years and 100,000 km. The warranty holds even if the vehicle has half a dozen owners. Which raises the question of why Neta will only honor a warranty with the original owner. What do they know that we don't? Who apart from you on this thread has heard of Wuling, and what reputation has it established for after-sales service and reliability? Religions always have a problem with heretics and agnostics. Ev's are no exception. If you are not 100% pro-EV 100% of the time, then you are Anti-EV... this binary thinking ignores those with balanced options that are not on the extremes of the opinion spectrum - but get pigeon holed as Anti or Pro by the opposition as a form of gaslighting.

...and you can cut back on telling me what to post. Give it up already - this is not the thread to get into a pishing match... we can keep it on topic and interesting. You can get pedantic in other threads - you are posting good info on this thread, please try and keep it like that if you can.

That concrete wall..... Map Photo looking at the South end of Muan Airfield, and photo looking NNW towards the wall (likely are the air-craft penetrated the wall) Its surprising that the Wall caused so much devastation - punctured the fuel tanks perhaps ?

Yes, I'm speculating that the open thrust reverser seen in the video means that it was, er, open! You can cut back on the defensiveness for this thread... the comment I made was highlight my points were all speculation...

Impossible. The aircraft would immediately turn with thrust reverse in a single engine. Especially with no nose wheel steering. This is all speculation and before someone jumps in... of course I'm guessing (along with everyone else). I would 'guess' that the rudder has a the primary impact on direction at those speeds than the nose-wheel.

I'm sure you ONLY ever comment on any thread involving an accident or incident once official investigations have been concluded...

Thanks - where did you get that info from ?...

How many Aircraft over-run a runway ??? Perhaps there was no space for a longer run off area ???... due to either geography or area's of population... Or, most likely, cost. Air-craft carriers have a 'net' to catch some planes when the the bolter fails.. though thats for light air-craft. The runway length at Muan was 2800m... The longest runway in the UK is Fairford, at 3046m and 4,877 meters at Denver, Colorado in the USA - the length of both runways is to support unique operational needs, including high-altitude performance and military requirements. Thus: 2800m is more than enough - under normal conditions the 737-800 requires 1500m to 1800m of runway, and in extreme icy conditions up to 2100m to 2500m of runway. Even with landing gear failure, reverse thrust should have enabled the aircraft to stop. Thus, the run off appears to be a combination of failures - the perfect storm so to speak.

Which is completely understandable on a forum of laymen, no ?? You can ignore the nonsense comments and only engage the comments you wish to... From my perspective - I'm interested in how the landing gear did not deploy as the 737-800 landing gear can be unlocked from the cabin and manually lowed via-gravity and free-fall into place and locked with a spring-loaded mechanism... (according to other reports).... Thus - were the Air-crew not aware of the failure of the landing gear to deploy until belly / touchdown... or was the air-craft in such a catastrophic condition, this is the only one shot they had at landing... There was also no flaps and no reverse thrust - so the failure was across systems (flaps, landing gear and Engines) and redundancies also non-operational. Then there is the wall, which had the runway been a lot longer, there would be more survivors (20/20 hindsight there)... Could a 'net be used' much like the air-craft carriers ? though weight differences of air-craft and potential maintenance cost vs crash probability make this concept somewhat of a non-starter. These are all my 'laymans' thoughts on the topic and worthy of discussion (IMO), perhaps others can fill in the flaws in my comments with their knowledge and I can learn something.