F4UCorsair

I'm sure these scams happen; there couldn't be so many people reporting it if it didn't, but in all my time in Thailand, probably 30-40 visits over almost 30 years, I have never been scammed. I've never been jet skiing at the resorts though. I've never had the 'funny money' stunt tried on me when exchanging.

I've never had a cop try anything on me, and have found the Thai police to be more than helpful right across the country.

I did have a soldier who was presumably guarding the ruins in Ayutthaya ask for money going back 20 years or so, long before it became a touristy place. I refused, (pretty gutsy I thought at the time considering he was carrying an automatic weapon) and he wandered off. I've hired motorcycles and cars, driven across a good part of the country, and never been approached by a cop for anything.

I can't say the same for Indonesia. I've spent quite some time there also, and it's not unusual to be picked up by cops half a dozen times in a day when I'm riding a motorcycle, for nothing other than I'm a westerner. The 'funny money' scam is rife there also.

I've never had a problem in Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia either.

Tourists can be rsoles at times, so I'm guessing the locals do become somewhat hardened to their antics. Stealing bar mats comes to mind.

Sassienie, I'm with you.

So mapguy, if you see a post, and there must be hundreds, if not thousands, that doesn't interest you in any way, you'll post,

What's the point of the post???

I look forward to that, and Tywais response.

Thank you Tywais!!

Once again for mapguy, george posted because it is a news item that would be of interest to many expats in Thailand.

You didn't think george's post served any useful purpose??? Well then, what the hel_l does your original post do??? Even less I would have thought.

You can protest all you like, but your response is a childish, cliched response I see on many forums, posted by those who have nothing to say that is worth listening to, who think they are funny, and seek to be provocative. There are a few of these lunatics who frequent most forums, unfortunately.

If I was a moderator here, I would be taking a hard line on you right now; no more chances. Your IP address would be blocked as the originator of future posts.

Take a good look at yourself, and if you don't see an immature, foolish person, you are deluding yourself.

jackr, thanks for the support against this clown.

It seems that "So what is the point of your post, what point are you making", etc., are smart ar$e comments made by dickheads who have nothing to contribute but want to appear smart.

The more I think about this poor guy, dying at 33, the more inappropriate I think the stupid post was.

Perhaps giving some thought to what you are about to post Mapguy, if you are capable of rational thought, would be in order before posting again!! Speculation on the cause of his death is also unnecessary, regardless of how easy it is to get drugs, and thanks Shah Jahan for a little information.

As a parent who lost a daughter at that same age, I found Mapguy's comment unnecessary, inappropriate, unfunny, offensive, and just plain stupid. Imagine how his family would feel if they saw the post.

Just in case you missed it, here it is again

It's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're an idiot instead of opening it and confirming their thoughts!!

I thought that was worth posting as did george; many expats in Thailand, and it is of interest.

Obviously Mapguy thought it wasn't, but why the smart ar$e comment?? Seems like a case of immaturity to me Mapguy, and a little sensitivity would be better received than a half witted attempt at being funny.

Here's a tip. It's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're an idiot instead of opening it and confirming their thoughts!!

I think it's sad that somebody/anybody dies at 33, regardless of the circumstances. He more than likely has surviving family, and it will be a tough time for them; a mother and father somewhere without a son, and siblings who have lost their brother. That they may not establish the circumstances with any certainty will be distressing for them.

I'll tell you how to make a small fortune from the stock market, and quite quickly. Start with a big fortune!!

Seriously, if/when you come to invest in shares, don't go anywhere near other than blue chip. That has been my investment philosophy; find the top ten companies (and that's easy on the net), buy and never sell. The top ten companies in Australia are almost the same ten as they were 20 years ago; I think there are eight from back then still up there, and one of those ten 20 years back was swallowed by another in the top ten. They are there because they are big and well managed.

I have friends who have played the speculative shares, spent huge amounts of time and caused themselves enormous stress buying and selling, and are not even close to where I am financially.

But, you have to make a plan, and fast. Figure out a savings plan and then start investing when you have enough to start buying shares.

The poster who says he needs B100,000 a month must be living extravagantly. That's more than the average Australian worker earns as a net salary, about A$4,500. I believe I could easily live in Thailand on less than half that and still live well

The ideal pet is a tapeworm. It goes where you go and eats what you eat!! Very convenient.

I had property in Indonesia a while back, and registered a mortgage for way in excess of what the property was worth; that precluded my local partner in whose name the property ws held from using it for security to borrow, and since it was for a lot more than the property's actual value, it took care of inflation and I didn't have to renew the mortgage at any stage.

It seems my regular, the CM Gate, may have a serious competitor next visit to CM in a few months. Gaps looks nice.

A little background information on entering Vietnam. If you have anything with Chinese writing (kanji) on it, declare it or hide it well. If you declare it it will be held until you leave. This was my experience a couple of years ago,.

I'd bought an antique Chinese vase in Hong Kong, and HCMC customs didn't like it, so I picked it up on the way out. I should have read Lonely Planet because the then current edition had mentioned the problem.

The Christian Scientists determined my personality type after a similar type of interview. It must have been an unlucky day for all the people taking the test along with me because we all failed! They offered to sell us an opportunity to repair our personalities though which was nice.

How does one fail a personality test Loaded??? Oh, I got it. The Christian Scientists are working a scam so that they can sell you a plan to 'get you through' and then you actually have a personality, and as a consequence can by typed. Not very Christian of the Christian Scientists.

Johpa, you probably do need the CS's to intervene if you're the same type as Bill Clinton and thinking like that, you craft old dog!! Nice thinking. She'll need a blue cocktail dress for authenticity though, and don't forget the cigar, wrapped in cling wrap so you can smoke it later!!

Last time I used the service a few months back, it was B270 in to Sukhumvit Soi Nana, and B295 back tot he airport with heavy traffic.

My experiences with taxi drivers haven't been as favourable as planemad. Mostly I've had them try me on for a fixed fare (B600 last time) but just walk away and flag another one and they soon come to their senses.

Or Suvarnabhumi Airport itself, and the fiasco surrounding the 'official' opening and when it started operations.

I attempted to edit my earlier post, but couldn't add the following:

Even some conventional aircraft have limited FBW to activate what are generally emergency/backup systems, e.g., TE flaps and LED's on a Boeing.

sibeymai, you said:

The only difference between FBW and direct control backup in this situation is the tactile feedback a pilot receives from a direct control system.

Well, that's not a difference; FBW aircraft have 'feel computers' (because control is thorugh hydraulic systems) as do conventional aircraft for a number of functions so there is feedback.The earliest form of 'feel computers' was the stick shaker stall warning because the approaching stall couldn't be felt through the hydraulic system.

We'll have to wait and see what the cause of the crash was before we can determine whether a conventinal aircraft would have saved the day over a FBW, and we may never know. If it was iced up pitot tubes, and an erroneous airspeed was sent to the FDC, and the aircraft entered severe turbulence at higher than the optimum penetration speed, then nothing would have saved it from an in flight breakup, but there's even some conjecture now as to whether that happened.

I think I may have said this in an earlier post, but perhaps not as directly, so here it is:

A FBW aircraft is conventional in every way, i.e., it is essentially the same as a non FBW aircraft EXCEPT that it has no physical connection between the pilots' control columns/side sticks and the flight control surfaces. There may be a few cosmetic things, but otherwise the two are essentially the same; they fly the same and the same inputs cause the same effect, i.e., pull back it goes up, push forward and it goes down.

A conventional aircraft has cables (mostly) from the flight deck to the hydraulic/electric actuators whereas a FBW has electrical wiring that transmits signals to the actuators. Even some conventional aircraft have limited FBW to activate what are generally emergency/backup systems, e.g., TE flaps and LED's on a Boeing.

FBW aircraft still have multiple systems, hydraulic, electric, pneumatic, anti icing, etc., so still stand to suffer faults in those systems. The electric/electronic impulses transmitted via the wires do not activate control surfaces, undercarriage, etc., contrary to what seems to be popular belief. That is done by the impulses activating conventional systems to control surfaces.

The navigation systems are conventional, multiple GPS's feeding Flight Management/Performance Computers, Flight Data Computers and Symbol Generators feeding the instrumentation, conventional navigation aids are used (newer generation aircraft [and not just FBW aircraft] have auto selection though), they both have auto throttles, multiple brake and hydraulic systems and enormous redundancy built in, and a whole lot of other common installations.

The FBW technology is only a small part of the overall complex machine, so a FBW failure will almost inevitably impact on other systems.

toptuan, I quoted my credentials because somebody expressed doubt; no more and no less.

As for a pissing contest, as somebody else posted, if you don't want to participate, don't.

"Unless a program code error is found to be the primary cause of an accident most accidents will still be determined to be caused by pilot error or mechanical/electrical or other systems failures, including Pitot tube sensors feeding data to FBW systems. "

By that definition, there may NEVER be a FBW attributed accident !! It will always be categoried as an electrical/hydraulic/other system failure because there is an interface between the FBW technology and all other systems.

"However, a pilot would have to be very skilled and extremely lucky to successfully fly "blind" for an extended period relying on the tactile feedback and human senses. "

A pilot would have to be a great deal more than skilled and lucky to maintain control with reference to his senses for more than a few seconds in a high performance jet without instrumentation or any outside reference.

Incidentally, pilot error normally results from system failures, or multiples thereof, but accidents are still categorized as 'pilot error' seldom with any reference to the root cause/s.

Please excuse the oduble post; I'm not sure how that happened.

Ah, he good old days when there was an FE up front. Going a lot further back, there was also a radio operator. I can't imagine a DC3 cockpit with four crew up there.

"Hey F4UCorsair, for someone who says they've flown heavy metal for 30 years your posts don't read anything like those on professional pilot forums. I wonder why."

How would you like me to sound sibeymai, like an airline pilot visiting the local aero club and making out I'm a hero?? I wouldn't say I'm dumbing my posts down, but this isn't a forum where one would expect to find many with aeronautical knowledge, so I have gone for a more simplistic presentation. There's no point in presenting here full of jargon if nobody would understnad what is being said. I could write something that nobody would understand if you'd prefer though. It sounds to me that you may fancy yourself as the successor to cdvnic as the resident troll !!

I don't frequent PPRuNe because there are too many confrontationist and pretentious wanke_rs there, and I said in an earlier post that I'm not an aviation enthusiast; I worked as a pilot for 30+ years, but apart from the first few of those years, didn't see it as anything but a job, a huge income job, but still just a job.

I can assure you I have a military background, Macchi, Mirage III, and with airlines B737-300, B747-300/400 and B777, and retired with a touch under 20,000 hours total time. Since you're probably wondering why I've noted different 747 types and only one 777, the B747-300 is a different endorsement (because of different technology) from the 400 whereas a single B777 endorsement covers all, but I'm sure you knew that from hanging out on the professional pilot forums! The B737-300 endorsement covered up to the 500 series and subsequent 737's were another endorsement, the NG's. I hold ATPL's in four countries.

Once again, I have no axe to grind over FBW or otherwise. The ony point I believe I've tried to make is that a FBW failure doesn't have to be burnt out wiring; that is merely a link in the vast chain.

"Hey F4UCorsair, for someone who says they've flown heavy metal for 30 years your posts don't read anything like those on professional pilot forums. I wonder why."

How would you like me to sound sibeymai?? I wouldn't say I'm dumbing my posts down, but this isn't a forum where one would expect to find many with aeronautical knowledge, so I have gone for a more simplistic presentation. There's no point in presenting here full of jargon if nobody would understnad what is being said. I could write something that nobody would understand if you'd prefer though. It sounds to me that you may fancy yourself as the successor to cdvnic as the resident troll !!

I don't frequent PPRuNe because there are too many confrontationist and pretentious wanke_rs there.

I can assure you I have a military background, Mirage III, and with airlines B747-300/400 and B777, and retired with a touch under 20,000 hours total time. Since you're probably wondering why I've noted different 747 types and only one 777, the B747-300 is a different endorsement (because of different technology) from the 400 whereas a single B777 endorsement covers all.

Once again, I have no axe to grind over FBW or otherwise. The ony point I believe I've tried to make is that a FBW failure doesn't have to be burnt out wiring; that is merely a link in the vast chain.

I've been asking for facts since the beginning and you've given me none. But I know when to give up and admit victory. I'll leave you to gossip with the others.

If you do happen to find solid evidence of one single airline accident caused by fly-by-wire, let me know, because so far you haven't

A failure of a FBW system doesn't have to be a wiring loom burnt out any more than a hydraulic failure has to be a hydraulic pump burnt out. Systemic failures are not always, or even mostly, the obvious.

What a shame you won't be back; I did ask for your credentials, but you appear to not have any!!

Your propensity to badmouth when you don't have others fall in with you is also a concern.

Also, I didn't realize this was a win/lose situation. Did somebody/anybody decalre at the outset that there had to be a winner and loser?? I didn't see that.

cdnvic, I have to ask, and you may have mentioned it earlier but I haven't read the entire thread.

Are you a pilot, engineer, or associated with an airline?? If so, in what capacity?

I'm not suggesting that if you're not you don't know what you're talking about, but what I pointed out was that the technology in Airbus aircraft was difficult at best, and it wasn't a lack of training that caused a couple of early crashes. The failure rate of pilots transitioning to Airbus is higher than it should be and that's because of difficulties with the technology, not the actual FBW concept itself.

Former pilot colleagues say that in an Airbus they are less aware of what is happening than in a Boeing. They are pilots with tens of thousands of hours experience.

FBW aircraft can also suffer loss of hydraulics as did the DHL aircraft hit by a missile in the middle east. It was only some exceptionally skilful flying that it didn't crash. That wouldn't have been a FBW failure of course, but I do make the point again that FBW aircraft do have hydraulic systems that can fail.

I see no need to desist from telling it how it is, whatever form that takes, even if that causes distress for those who have a fear of flying. That's not my role.

Indian Airlines did crash an A320 in 1990 on approach to Bangalore; the crew didn't advance the throttles when a high rate of descent was detected, and that was a lack of knowledge of operating systems peculiar to the Airbus technology. Advancing the throttles on an A320, certainly the early models, didn't always result in increased power, and vice versa. There were Mode Control Panel (that's a Boeing term, but may also apply to Airbus) settings that were required to be set appropriately to guarantee that the power was proportionatal to the throttle setting.

An interesing fact reagrding the A320 is that Airbus almost didn't put throttles in it, and it was only as a result of pilot feedback that they did. That's how relevant they are, and it has caused confusion quite a number of times. Pilots need throttles to play with.

cdnvic, you said a couple of pages back Although there is not a single commercial aviation accident attributed to fly by wire failures, there are many that have been due to mechanical failure, and others which could have been avoided by having the computer correct a pilot's oversight.

FBW will not correct pilot oversights. The FBW technology in Airbus aircraft will prevent the aircraft being flown outside its operating envelope, but no more, so if a pilot forgets something, it's forgotten.

And I say again that FBW wire aircraft still have hydraulics. FBW only replaces the long cable and hydraulic runs in conventional aircraft.

Neither airline has ever crashed a fly-by-wire aircraft.

Sorry to keep throwing facts in the way of speculation, but all I seem to get in return is vague rumour and innuendo.

I may have made a mistake on the airline cdnvic, but an Asian airline did crash a FBW aircraft some years back, soon after take off. I'll do some research and ask a few mates if they recall it.

And Airbus in the low, slow fly by?? I thik that qualifies as a lack of knowledge causing the aircrat to crash.

I believe Indian Airlines did also. I was transitting Delhi about 20 years ago, and the entire Indian Airlines A320 fleet was grounded, due to a crash as I recall it.

I'm obviously not the enthusiast you are; I did fly heavy jets for over 30 years, but it was/became just a job, as most jobs do.

You seem to think I have an axe to grind on FBW aircraft. I don't. In fact I mentioned above that the technology saved a lot of lives in the low, slow fly by at an airshow/trade day. I can't even recall what airport it was, that's how much of an enthusiast I am.

And that's the proof Datsun 240Z, if anyone needed it, that some things never change!!

Other than one test aircraft, there are none.

cdnvic, that is incorrect. I recall a China Airlines or Air China (not sure which) that crashed as a result of the crew no completely understanding the technology, and it could probably be said that the crew who lost the A320 in the fly by in France didn't understand it either.

That low level fly by crash though was a good example of how the advanced technology saved a lot of lives; when the flying pilot gave it a heap of backstick to clear the trees, the computer said it wouldn't comply and flew the aircraft wings level into the forest. Almost every airline in the world flew that sequence in their simulators as a Crew Resource Management exercise, and almost every crew rolled the aircraft on its back which would have resulted in all on board being killed.

For a trained crew, 20 seconds to realize and react to an abnormal situation is a lifetime. It should have been as simple as a boot full of rudder, shut down the affected engine and recover. After shutdown (perhaps 10 seconds at most), there was no urgency.

The checklilst didn't call for an engine shutdown under the circumstances (when the abnormal situation was evident 9 minutes before) or it would have been done. It merely warned of the possibility of the engine's reverse thrust deploying. Proof of a shutdown not being required was that the checklist noted that reverse would deploy normally on landing. If a crew shut down an engine against the QRH instruction they'd be hung by their spuds in the chief pilot's office.

bkkjames, I agree that aircraft are infinitely safer now than they were 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago. The unsafest part of your journey is the drive to the airport.

FBW aircraft still have hydraulics, and from what's been written above it may appear otherwise. What FBW aircraft don't have is miles of hydraulic lines between the flight deck and control surfaces. The wires run most of that and activate hydraulic pumps closer to the surfaces. If FBW aircraft didn't have hydraulics, it would be near impossible to fly them for more than half an hour. One notable example of a FBW aircraft being saved after a total hydraulic failure was the DHL A320 in the middle east that was hit by a missile.

I don't think anybody is stirring up hysteria over airbus aircraft. If there had been a recent Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, etc., crash and it was topical for this forum, then it would probably have been mentioned.

I have a copy of a National Geographic from about mid 70's I think which has an article about air safety. The final paragraph states "Flying will never be entirely safe". When we climbed off all fours, life started to become more dangerous.

There's an old crewroom line that says',"When you're up to your butt in alligators, it's difficult to remember the original aim was to drain the swamp," and it's a lot like that up front occasionally, so whilst pilots do contribute to accidents, there are sometimes mitigating circumstances.There's no doubt they save more aircraft than they lose.