MangoKorat

Has the woman in the photo got breasts, sorry envelope flaps, on her back?

Just now, Wuvu2 said:

 

 

You must be a lot of fun at parties 

Nope, I have a lot of fun at parties - maybe because I don't make cheap quips based on an old fashioned understanding of a word.

What's your problem, does someone pointing out your mistake hurt your feelings? Its nothing, don't let it bother you. Over & out.

4 hours ago, proton said:

 

No, but a lack of details and apparently 'PTSD' after a little shock leaving no physical evidence

Not supporting any viewpoint but just to correct you - nobody, but nobody, gets a 'little shock' from overhead power lines.  If you don't believe me, climb a pole and grab one.

1 minute ago, Wuvu2 said:

So your point is that she's not a Drama Queen?

I think my point is quite clear, I was commenting on your mistaken understanding of the word, nothing else.

1 hour ago, spermwhale said:

Nothing is grounded (earthed for you Brits). I can't tell you how many times I touched a piece of electronics that was plugged in and got a mild shock. 

No, especially not overhead power lines.

2 hours ago, Wuvu2 said:

"Electrocution" means death from electrical shock. She's alive and just another Drama Queen creating clickbait 

2 hours ago, Puccini said:

electocute

to kill someone by causing electricity to flow through their body

Source: Cambrige dictionary

 

"Miraculous resurrection from the dead" would have been a more appropriate story title.

 

Not exactly guys.  We have had this debate on here before.  The meaning of 'Electrocuted' used to = death but it has varied for many years now to include serious injury.

Origin

late 19th century (first used with reference to execution in the electric chair): from electro-, on the pattern of execute .

 

Oxford Languages

On 12/30/2023 at 10:19 AM, CharlieH said:

The mistake most westerners make is they assume a certain behaviour and standard that simply does not exist here.

 

I know exactly where you're coming from but it would be so easy to improve things on the roads - save a few lives too. In a tourist area (like below), I can fully understand why tourists might assume that cars would stop at a crossing controlled by lights.

I try my best to ignore what goes on but sometimes its just bloody madness.  I was hit (not badly) by a taxi in Bangkok. I was on a light controlled crossing showing cars a red light and me a green man.  Many here will know that crossing and the madness that goes on there - Sukhumvit - junction with Soi 3/4.  The cop in the police box opposite did absolutley nothing - as they all do every minute of every day as cars ignore the lights there - what is the purpose of having a cop in that box?  Nothing that is until I dragged the taxi driver out of his car - then it was me who was threatened with arrest!  Never mind that the taxi driver had just run a red light and injured a pedestrian.  Can't be having those damned dirty foreigners punching our poor taxi drivers can we?

I believe a foreign couple were killed on that crossing a few years back.

9 hours ago, gomangosteen said:

If time not of importance, go past Sa Kaeo and take a right/south on highway 3395, slower, more scenic, less traffic.

Thanks for all your info.  unfortunately I won't have time to take the scenic route - I'll be heading for the islands and I want to arrive well before dark.  I've been literally dozens of times but always from Bangkok or Samet.  I did once go from Korat with the ex's family - down the 304 and instead of hanging a right at Prachin Buri, they carried on down the 331. I did ask why but just got blank looks - what would a stupid foreigner know? Those damned foreigners with their maps, they think they know everything .

10 minutes ago, 2baht said:

Be aware of local drivers, their driving abilities are legendary!

Not exactly what I'm looking for. As I'm sure I've told you before - I'm hardly a newcomer.

Is anyone familiar with highway 317 from Nakhon Ratchasima to Trat?  Looks like a decent - ish road, some dual carriageway some just normal roads.  Any problems that anyone knows of?

27 minutes ago, asiansnow said:

The question is why the DHC was on the runway when the garbled atc recording suggests that the DHC was only cleared to just before the runway (probably awaiting JAL to land first).

Well we are all speculating - all should become clear shortly but it seems that the Coastguard aircraft was somewhere it shouldn't have been. The pilot survived so he will be able to tell his side of the story. However, in the movies we see ATC screens showing the exact position of every aircraft on the airport grounds.  If that's true to life, why didn't they tell him where he was heading?  Maybe it was too late?

10 minutes ago, Captain Monday said:

Now clear, somehow, the Japan Coast Guard plane was on the active runway where the JL A350 had been already cleared to land. 

Yes, watching the extended footage in one of the videos above a plane had taxied up past the parked planes on the runway side and then disappeared into the darkness, the A350 ignites at 3.47 into that video but its not really possible to see what it hit.

However, the A350's nosecone is damaged and the left hand engine has a dent on its left hand side (clear in a different video).  Could that indicate that the coastguard plane was indeed the one the disappeared from view and the A350 hit is as it joined the runway? Had it hit it head on I would have thought the physical damage would be greater.

6 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

Yes agree is looks highly dangerous, but the airport will have prepared plans for all incidents, based on aircraft type, location on airport, weather and wind conditions, which would have determined the tactics, monitors and hand-lines placement.

Do you think those plans would have included walking right up to the wing (fuel tank) which could surely explode at any second without warning? This was an already burning aircraft, not one that has the potential to burn.  I've seen them cover (unlit) planes with foam at Manchester and was told by a firefighter friend that its something that's done when there is a known or potential fuel leak following damage but even that was done by a tender from distance not by a single firefighter standing right next to the wing.

If it had exploded, I can't think of any scenario where he would have survived.  I bow to your experience but I can't imagine any plan that would allow for him to be so close to an already burning aircraft.

Planned or unplanned, that guy is probably more lucky than the passengers.

3 hours ago, asiansnow said:

to the point the flight attendants decided it was worth evacuating slowly (and orderly).

Apparently they got all passengers and crew out within 90 seconds.

23 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

the disciplined cultural response from the passengers.

I suspect you have an important point there. I can imagine a different scenario where mass panic and ignorance of instructions given would result in 'an every man for himself' situation. Lessons to be learned from the behaviour of the passengers.

45 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

My only guess, at what seems to be a strange deployment, is that they are trying to lay a foam blanket under that point of the aircraft, to protect the escape chutes. Very risky place to be.

Yes, I've seen that footage but if you look at the original BBC footage that I posted, it clearly shows a guy trying to spray foam up the fuselage - and failing badly.  A lot of details to come out yet but that particular operation not only looks futile, its surely highly dangerous for a guy to be anywhere near the wings of a burning aircraft.

Later footage shows a tender with a decent jet being used to douse the emergency exits so clearly they have such equipment - still doesn't explain why the lone fireman was so close to the wings with a retardent jet that was struggling to reach even half way up the plane.

5 out of 6 crew members on the coastguard aircraft confirmed dead.

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20240102_Y2/

Given that most/all airports have fire tenders with high pressure jets on them that can cover quite some distance - why is the guy in the BBC video so close to the wings of the plane where the fuel is stored?  Thankfully being and incoming flight, it won't have had a full fuel load but I wouldn't have thought being so close to the wings was a good idea in any case.

3 minutes ago, Crossy said:

Seems to have been a mid-air!!

 

https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/656665-jal-incident-haneda-airport-3.html

 

All out safely, one can hope!

 

According to the BBC all the passengers and crew on the A350 got out but 5 of 6 on the coastguard plane it hit are missing.

I hope you are prepared for the smell . Long grass is far better!

Obvioulsy this is a developing story and much more will be learned as time goes by and the full details are known but watching the video below - doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the airport's fire fighting capabilities.  Watching the lone firefighter in this video - his equipment seems woefully inadequate. The jet of retardent doesn't even reach the windows of the aircraft.

Re: Airfares.

Just one example that I found when booking European flights on sites like Ryanair etc. They often have really cheap deals to Eurpoean destinations from the UK but they are often just to hook you in, when you look at the return price, especially if you're booking a weekend away, you often find that its either a hideous price or its at a bad time or day.  Hence what looked like a really good deal turns out not be so good.  If you can't get a flight at the right price on the right day, you're also going to fork out more for additional accommodation/meals.

Last September I saw a Friday night flight to Krakow for £25 outbound. However, unless I was prepared to stay until the following Tuesday or Wednesday, the inbound flight was £141 (Monday). Then I looked at the same flight booked separately using a VPN and basing myself in Poland - £42.

I've never tried looking at long haul flights using a VPN but I have noticed that flights from Dublin to Bangkok are often a fair amount cheaper than Manchester to Bangkok with the same airline - could be other reasons for that though.

On 12/29/2023 at 2:22 AM, webfact said:

The Move Forward Party, despite winning the most seats in the May election, couldn’t form a government.

Wouldn't 'despite winning the most seats in the May election, weren't allowed to form a government' be closer to the truth?

On 12/28/2023 at 11:09 PM, DJ54 said:

I’ve not heard about this… is it going to be a requirement? Cost? How do they test if you has ABD will crash test dummies?

Doubtfull anything will actually happen but if it does it will be a requirement for new bikes. Just about impossible to retrofit and the cost would be astronomical.