a world without aircraft

[taff..]

prompted by this bbc article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8626000/8626927.stm


how would a world that had no aircraft flying affect you?

fruit and veg in the shops limited to a selection of in season locally grown

holdays would change dramatically with destinations taking days or weeks to get to by boat instead of hours by plane.

No imported queens, (YAY)


on the down side for me, my profession revolves around aircraft so that'd have to change

 

[oliver90owner]

fruit and veg in the shops limited

But not that much. A lot are brought in by boat. Only the exotic soft fruits that would be seriously affected and it might just mean a reduction in the supposedly 'fresh' fruits. A lot more frozen produce?

I could live without it.

Regards, RAB

 

[taff..]

I dont consider strawberries, blackbarries and blueberries to be exotics, but that wasn't the question in the OP.

the question was

how would a world that had no aircraft flying affect you?

 

[oliver90owner]

OK, to simply answer: Not a lot.

RAB

 

[merylvingien]

Think of the amount of pollution that isnt being chuffed into the atmosphere!

 

[jimbeekeeper]

Think of the amount of pollution that isnt being chuffed into the atmosphere!

But wait.... "they" are now saying we need the planes vapour trails to keep the planet cool

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ise-temperatures.html?ITO=1708&referrer=yahoo

 

[merylvingien]

LOL its a joke isnt it!

 

[taff..]

But wait.... "they" are now saying we need the planes vapour trails to keep the planet cool

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ise-temperatures.html?ITO=1708&referrer=yahoo

that's interesting, I hadn't read that before, thanks for posting it

 

[Hivemaker.]

I would like to see all aircraft grounded forever,recycle them into saucepans or something.

 

[taff..]

OK, to simply answer: Not a lot.

RAB

I would like to see all aircraft grounded forever,recycle them into saucepans or something.

so you are not bothered about the inability to travel to foreign shores quickly and easily or the inability to import/export goods quickly.


what about the ability to transport the military around the globe? Afghanistan would be one hell of a trek without being able to fly there, and then casualty extraction could be extremely difficult to damn near impossible. (the argument of whether or not we SHOULD be there is a different one so please dont drag that into this thread)

what about SAR, the air ambulance and police helicopters?

they do fantastic jobs that cannot be done as efficiently or as safely from the ground.

 

[jimbeekeeper]

Afghanistan would be one hell of a trek without being able to fly there,.

"Dont mention the war" Like it is not being mentioned in the election rubbish.

IMHO we should not be there, but that is a whole new thread.



This dust cloud has been blown out of all propostions by elf a saftey lot, just go on some of the pilots forums, they are saying it is fine to fly.

 

[Hivemaker.]

Taff,you asked the question,i gave my answer,and its still the same,could not care less about planes,non of them,rapid way of spreading disease around the world fast,and causing massive pollution at the same time. We managed to invade and take over many countries before they were ever invented, Genghis khan,the Romans ect did a dam good job of invading other countries without them as well.

 

[jimbeekeeper]

I am happy to Cruise the world anyway, saves on jet lag which I am only just getting over!

 

[taff..]

"Dont mention the war" Like it is not being mentioned in the election rubbish.

IMHO we should not be there, but that is a whole new thread.



This dust cloud has been blown out of all propostions by elf a saftey lot, just go on some of the pilots forums, they are saying it is fine to fly.

Rolls-Royce are saying different, they're airworthiness department have said dont fly our engines through that there big cloud, if you do and the engines stop making noise then it aint our fault.

 

[jimbeekeeper]

Taff, the pilots are not necessarily say fly through the clouds, with the technology available it is quite easy to avoid!

e.g fly lower until cleared, yes flying lower burns more fuel, but not flying at all costs more.

These are a couple of good sites you can see in real time plane movements, second site even shows the dust cloud.

(PS these sites are getting hit hard due to recent problems so might not load)


http://www.flightradar24.com/

http://www.radarvirtuel.com/

 

[taff..]

Taff,you asked the question,i gave my answer,and its still the same,could not care less about planes,non of them,rapid way of spreading disease around the world fast,and causing massive pollution at the same time. We managed to invade and take over many countries before they were ever invented, Genghis khan,the Romans ect did a dam good job of invading other countries without them as well.

disease can be spread just as effectively by boats sailing around the globe, do we stop them as well?

pollution - yes they pollute, and I understand that it thought that the altitude makes things a lot worse, do you drive a car/van/tractor/lorry/motorbike? they all pollute.

Air superiority is the first objective of any war plan, so looking back hundreds of years to a time when they didn't have electricity for a warplan may be considered as rather 'Vain' I think

 

[taff..]

Taff, the pilots are not necessarily say fly through the clouds, with the technology available it is quite easy to avoid!

e.g fly lower until cleared, yes flying lower burs more fuel, but not flying at all costs more.

These are a couple of good sites you can see in real time plane movements, second site even shows the dust cloud.

(PS these sites are getting hit hard due to recent problems so might not load)


http://www.flightradar24.com/

http://www.radarvirtuel.com/

Jim, I'm not disputing there are workrounds for the problem.

you said it was health and safety that said dont fly, I said Rolls-Royce advised that their engines should not be flown in the environment as their engine have not been tested in those conditions.

having met the head of airworthiness several times I'd be inclined to trust his judgment.

curiously, I was a little surprised to see the military SAR fleet grounded, the Sea Kings have sandfilters fitted which have done many years in sandy places so are proven to work, couple that with the max altitude that they are likely to fly at and we have a pretty safe combination

 

[Hivemaker.]

Disease can be spread by ships,of course it can,but ships take time and any serious disease could be spotted and the ship not allowed to dock,so ships are not as effective at spreading disease as plains are they
As for war zones,if there were no plains there would be no rush would there,perhaps not as many places for us to interfere with in the first place. Air superiority,if there were no plains there would be no air superiority would there,anywhere.

 

[jimbeekeeper]

I was a little surprised to see the military SAR fleet grounded, the Sea Kings have sandfilters fitted which have done many years in sandy places so are proven to work, couple that with the max altitude that they are likely to fly at and we have a pretty safe combination

yes sand is quite bad, but easly worked with.

Which is why, efl and saftey has gone a bit mad.

 

[taff..]

yes sand is quite bad, but easly worked with.

Which is why, efl and saftey has gone a bit mad.

commercial air transport do not have sandfilters so cannot deal with the contamination as military helicopters do.

again, it has nothing to do with Health and safety as in the HSE, it is purely an Airworthiness decision