Flightradar 24 and Marine spotting odds and sods.

[Toastie]

I clocked that but wasn't able to see it.

Did see another object at the same time, too high to be able to see wings moving at a fair rate West to East but not leaving a trail either. At one point it looked like it was following something moving at the same speed a fair distance ahead.

Not saying it was aliens, but it was probably aliens.

Possibly it’s shadow. Seriously.

 

[BarcelonaAnalPark]

Possibly it’s shadow. Seriously.

Aye, I can well believe the object in front was a shadow, although the sun was not behind the object at that point.

It was way too fast & steady to be a balloon. Its height was above the clouds. Can you see satelites in the day?

 

[9.414]

Aye, I can well believe the object in front was a shadow, although the sun was not behind the object at that point.

It was way too fast & steady to be a balloon. Its height was above the clouds. Can you see satelites in the day?

Yes, if they are reflecting the sun off part of their surface. Just as with an aircraft - but further away!

 

[CutLunchCommando]

Aye, I can well believe the object in front was a shadow, although the sun was not behind the object at that point.

It was way too fast & steady to be a balloon. Its height was above the clouds. Can you see satelites in the day?

The sats that supported satelite telephone were good for that (the name eludes me). ISTR they were in quite a high orbit so had no shortage of sunlight and had been designed with BFO solar panels. These caught the sun vey well and because the orbits and orientations of the sats were well known you could predict where they coud be seen and in which part of the sky. AIUI they have been superseded now and the data isnt available anymore.

 

[Electromagnetic]

The sats that supported satelite telephone were good for that (the name eludes me). ISTR they were in quite a high orbit so had no shortage of sunlight and had been designed with BFO solar panels. These caught the sun vey well and because the orbits and orientations of the sats were well known you could predict where they coud be seen and in which part of the sky. AIUI they have been superseded now and the data isnt available anymore.

Sounds like Iridium So long, Iridium flares | EarthSky.org

 

[CutLunchCommando]

Sounds like Iridium So long, Iridium flares | EarthSky.org

Thats the badger.

ETA
Mag -8? Blimey.

 

[UKRaider]

Looks like we have been keeping tabs on Vlad...

 

[lastwalt]

I know it’s potentially dangerous, but several aspects of this story amused me.

Tui plane in ‘serious incident’ after every ‘Miss’ on board was assigned child’s weight

Service from Birmingham to Majorca took off with less thrust because pilot thought it was 1,200kg lighter

www.theguardian.com

 

[beefer]

I know it’s potentially dangerous, but several aspects of this story amused me.

Tui plane in ‘serious incident’ after every ‘Miss’ on board was assigned child’s weight

Service from Birmingham to Majorca took off with less thrust because pilot thought it was 1,200kg lighter

www.theguardian.com

In 1986 over 200 US military were killed when an overweight DC8 tried to take off from Gander. The crew used standard weights when the guys were generally large and carrying all their kit on return from Afghanistan/Iraq

 

[lastwalt]

In 1986 over 200 US military were killed when an overweight DC8 tried to take off from Gander. The crew used standard weights when the guys were generally large and carrying all their kit on return from Afghanistan/Iraq

Yes, I can see why it's potentially lethal, hence my caveat. Regardless of that, I can't believe that there is anyone who didn't give at least a little titter when reading:

"Investigators described the glitch as “a simple flaw” in an IT system. It was programmed in an unnamed foreign country where the title “Miss” is used for a child and “Ms” for an adult female."

Not least of all, because blaming Johnny foreigner for his cultural silliness is such an obvious attempt to cover up an incomplete specification, that I'm actually embarrassed for them.

 

[R0B]

I know it’s potentially dangerous, but several aspects of this story amused me.

Tui plane in ‘serious incident’ after every ‘Miss’ on board was assigned child’s weight

Service from Birmingham to Majorca took off with less thrust because pilot thought it was 1,200kg lighter

www.theguardian.com

I wasn't aware that the pax were weighed or are they assigned an average weight?

I think I saw in a documentary about the French Concorde crash that it was slightly overweight as well because some last minute cargo was packed after the weight was calculated.

 

[lastwalt]

I wasn't aware that the pax were weighed or are they assigned an average weight?

I think I saw in a documentary about the French Concorde crash that it was slightly overweight as well because some last minute cargo was packed after the weight was calculated.

It seems that this is exactly the issue - they were assigned a nominal weight incorrectly.

 

[R0B]

Yes, I can see why it's potentially lethal, hence my caveat. Regardless of that, I can't believe that there is anyone who didn't give at least a little titter when reading:

"Investigators described the glitch as “a simple flaw” in an IT system. It was programmed in an unnamed foreign country where the title “Miss” is used for a child and “Ms” for an adult female."

Not least of all, because blaming Johnny foreigner for his cultural silliness is such an obvious attempt to cover up an incomplete specification, that I'm actually embarrassed for them.

If we were writing that system and there was no flag in the record for a child we would have passed it back that to the client that they should either add a flag or define the parameters that we would use to get that information. The programmers shouldn't just make up their own criteria.

If it was a simple flaw in an IT system wouldn't every flight be calculated incorrectly until the system was fixed?

 

[lastwalt]

If we were writing that system and there was no flag in the record for a child we would have passed it back that to the client that they should either add a flag or define the parameters that we would use to get that information. The programmers shouldn't just make up their own criteria.

If it was a simple flaw in an IT system wouldn't every flight be calculated incorrectly until the system was fixed?

Quite

 

[CrashTestDummy]

I wasn't aware that the pax were weighed or are they assigned an average weight?

I'm sure @Toastie will back me up when I say that they use standard weights for pax; have you ever been weighed prior to boarding? We certainly did in military aviation, it was laid out in regs, with different weights for troops without kit, and with different personal loads.

I wouldn't mind betting, though, that check-in desks are equipped with a button for 'look out, here's a right fat bastard, add another 30kgs'.

 

[beefer]

When I first started on the North Sea the standard pax weight was 75kg. About five years later they did a check weigh-in for a whole day. Next day the standard was 85kg.

 

[kiwidoug]

I'm sure @Toastie will back me up when I say that they use standard weights for pax; have you ever been weighed prior to boarding? We certainly did in military aviation, it was laid out in regs, with different weights for troops without kit, and with different personal loads.

I wouldn't mind betting, though, that check-in desks are equipped with a button for 'look out, here's a right fat bastard, add another 30kgs'.

If not, there should be.

Travelling to Aussie from NZ, SWMBO discovered that her carry-on bag was 1.5 kg over the limit. As she began to howk out the unneeded stuff, a huge Samoan "lady" was checking in. Easily 100 kg over the weight of SWMBO. We just looked at each other, and the Qantas check in lady did look a wee bit bashful.

 

[CrashTestDummy]

When I first started on the North Sea the standard pax weight was 75kg. About five years later they did a check weigh-in for a whole day. Next day the standard was 85kg.

I seem to recall our 'basic' weight was 80kg, rising to 135kg with a bergan and weapon. Looking at a few of the UDR tubbies I used to add a further 10kg to the basic weight

 

[Lindermyer]

"Investigators described the glitch as “a simple flaw” in an IT system. It was programmed in an unnamed foreign country where the title “Miss” is used for a child and “Ms” for an adult female."

Not least of all, because blaming Johnny foreigner for his cultural silliness is such an obvious attempt to cover up an incomplete specification, that I'm actually embarrassed for them.

We have a very differrent take on that line - rather than the attempt to shift blame onto Johnny foriner I see it as an attempt to explain how it went wrong and rather than blame anyone shift blame off everyone - a simple language error everyone (on both ends) missed.

Followed by the passenger reassurance on how we avoid the error again.

 

[Lindermyer]

I wasn't aware that the pax were weighed or are they assigned an average weight?

I think I saw in a documentary about the French Concorde crash that it was slightly overweight as well because some last minute cargo was packed after the weight was calculated.

It was and not just heavier than crew thought but over the MTWA and the cof G was out as well -

Although, and this perhaps shines a light on the rest of the screw ups involved both were relatively minor issues in the accident.

If we were writing that system and there was no flag in the record for a child we would have passed it back that to the client that they should either add a flag or define the parameters that we would use to get that information. The programmers shouldn't just make up their own criteria.

Reading the article
It appears that all flags were there
The problem comes in at the user end and the UK use of "Miss" on entering the pax details

If it was a simple flaw in an IT system wouldn't every flight be calculated incorrectly until the system was fixed?

Seems to say that was the case in the article ( other flights affected) and that part of the problem is that the correction of this error didnt apply change retrospectively