Posted on 09/25/2012 8:46:43 AM PDT by chessplayer
In his latest gaffe, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney lamented the fact that airplane windows don't roll down.
(Excerpt) Read more at scientificamerican.com ...
Make that, “they are emotionally distracted and not thinking clearly”.
More partisan childishness from the media - this time the “Scientific American”.
Ahhh...what is that old scientific movement/measurement? The one where the hand flies over the head whilst saying WHOOOSH!
That might help Scientific American catch a clue.
Romney could say “The sky is clear blue today” or “According to the weather forecasters, there is a 30% chance of rain” or
“I have hair growing out of my scalp”.
All of the above statements would be considered a “Gaffe” and the LMS would fall over themselves trying to be first in exposing Romney.
P-39 fighter had roll down windows.
Boeing 777 does, too.
Years ago, I had a constant subscription to Scientific American. Sometime in the 1980s it became so political I cancelled my subscription. Still have a few boxes of the old issues.
Well, it’s not like the geniuses who wrote this article even bothered to find out what type of aircraft she was on. All of their calculations on why the windows can’t open and what a dummy Romney is are based on “commercial” aircraft. They didn’t even bother to notice that she was on a corporate jet (Canadair Challenger 601 aircraft)which only seats 10 passengers. I’m not saying that their findings are wrong but wouldn’t scientific method mandate (sorry, I used that word) they base their findings on the right type of aircraft? My Eight grader would have done very poorly on his science fair if HE used facts that may or may not apply.
Can’t he tell a bad joke occasionally?
With the American media? No. Doesn’t matter if it was a joke because that is not how the media will report it.
I don’t know about the feasibility being able to roll down airplane windows, but isn’t asking “what if “ a good place to start with innovation? What if we could roll down windows on airplanes? What if roads wouldn’t require repaving every few years? Just imagine what the unions and pork barrel politicians would think of maintenance free roads. Asking the obvious sometimes leads to breakthroughs. It isn’t always easy to get the message through thick skulls and those who are stuck in old ways.
...The plane had climbed to 17300 feet over Didcot, Oxfordshire. Suddenly, there was a loud bang, and the fuselage quickly filled with condensation. The left windscreen, on the captain's side of the cockpit, had separated from the forward fuselage. Lancaster was jerked out of his seat by the rushing air and forced head first out of the cockpit, his knees snagging onto the flight controls. This left him with his whole upper torso out of the aircraft, and only his legs inside. The door to the flight deck was blown out onto the radio and navigation console, blocking the throttle control which caused the plane to continue gaining speed as they descended, while papers and other debris in the passenger cabin began blowing towards the cockpit. On the flight deck at the time, flight attendant Nigel Ogden quickly latched his hands onto the captain's belt. Susan Price and another flight attendant began to reassure passengers, secure loose objects, and take up emergency positions. Meanwhile, Lancaster was being battered and frozen in the 500 mph slipstream, and was losing consciousness due to the thin air...
No one died.
Orville and Wilber didn’t have roll down windows. ;€)
Exactly.
Pretty much those drop down oxygen masks are for passenger comfort. If a rapid depressurization happens, and no supplemental oxygen is available, they lose consciousness.
If the pilot descends to breathable altitude in any sane time frame, they wake up again just fine.
Most passengers do not die from a depressurization. This was Scientific American? I suppose if the cabin depressurized at 33k, and you flew along like nothing was wrong, they would die. But geez anyone can see it was a joke. It’s a safe bet he’s ridden on bizjets. Everyone i know who has traveled much on them winds up with an amateur, but far better than average understanding of flying. They are all far more conversant about the machines than you would expect.
And is this is also the same rag that is all in for human caused global warming.
Scientific American is wrong.
The first thing you do is descend below 10,000 ft and flush the cockpit with outside air. The isssue is not lack of oxygen, but rather airstream.
Opening windows is not required, but I would point out that airliners have windows in the cockpit which do open.
I started my SciAm subscription in 1962 and abandoned it forever by about 1990. I even contributed some stuff. Now I look at the covers and just laugh.
I stopped reading it years ago when I slowly detected a change in the quality and tone of some of the articles.
That, and it just wasn't the same w/o Martin Gardner...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
