Passengers 'Trapped' Overnite on a Regional Jet ??

OK, maybe a 'passengers bill of rights' is needed. Here's what passengers need much MUCH MORE - CAPTAINS WHO WILL EXERCISE THEIR "CAPTAIN'S AUTHORITY!!" That may be hard to find in a Captain on a Regional Jet - most of whom are young, inexperienced, and fear for their jobs and hence careers should they do ANYTHING that would draw their company's attention to them. I submit that Captain should be FIRED for FAILURE TO USE Captain's Authority to insure the safety and well being of his/her passengers and crew (so should the First Officer). The Dispatcher responsible for that flight should also be FIRED. In all my years of flying for a major airline have I ever met another Captain or flown with a First Officer who would have allowed such a travesty to occur !!!!!! ----- THIS IS A DERELICTION OF DUTY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER not involving injury or death. ----- This is the same type of Cockpit Crew that would blindly accept an "ATC ReRoute" (without any thought of refusing) and arrive at the destination "Minimum Fuel" - needing priority to safely land, or be forced to land short of the intended destination for additional fuel !!! I CAN'T STAND THESE SPINELESS JERKS AND THAT THEY CAN HIDE BEHIND PILOT'S WINGS AND SHOULDER STRIPES.

"Revolutionary" Idea for the US Post Office

It wasn't so long ago you could mail a First Class letter for less than 25 cents. It seems that every year or two the "Postal Board of Governors ups the cost of First Class mail by 1-4 cents and Express and Priority mail 15-45 cents. WHO SITS ON THIS "POSTAL BOARD OF GOVERNORS" and are they IN BED with the 'Direct Marketing Association' (senders of most all JUNK mail) ??? Here's my "Revolutionary Idea" : Set the rate for JUNK MAIL at 39 cents/piece, 37 cents presorted bulk JUNK mail. Set the FIRST CLASS RATE at 24 cents/piece. WAIT A MINUTE -- those crafty Direct Junk Bulk Mailers would probably just switch to all First Class mailings. OK THEN, ALL MAIL goes to a rate of 29 cents. Since nearly 70% of all mail is of the 'JUNK' variety, the USPS should see an immediate increase in revenue ending year after year deficits of near to over 1 BILLION DOLLARS and operate at a Profit for YEARS - EVEN DECADES to come !!! ---- PROBLEM SOLVED ----

9/11 Pilot Mohammed Atta

Did you know Atta worked for "Arkenbright Security" (or was it 'Argenbright') at Boston Logan Airport for over a year prior to 9/11 ? He went thru 'Security' that morning of 9/11/2001 after his short flight from Portland, Maine, even said a few words to security employees he knew. It's on security video. Box cutters were legal then - only blades over 3 inches were illegal. Just in case you may have forgoten -- Osama's relatives were flown from Boston Logan to the Middle East (don't know actual arrival point) on 9/12/2001 ONE DAY AFTER !!!

Airport Security

Where does the media find these Morons that say on camera, "Yes, whatever it takes to keep us secure and safe," "I'm OK with the 'increased security.'" "Sure, it's another inconvenience but I feel more safe." Hopefully they have to interview 7-8 passengers to find one who's OK with it. Who out there does not understand that the TSA is all about the APPEARANCE of Security ? As a retired Airline Captain, I can assure you that we are and have been LESS secure since 9/11 because PROFILING was stopped. Several months after 9/11, a list of 30 or so statements describing the 9/11 hijackers circulated thru most Pilot and Flight Attendant Crew Rooms - statements that described the men, but we knew such men would NOT be 'chosen' by TSA for additional screening because it would be politically incorrect to single them out. So instead we have little old Ladies using walkers and canes, young Mothers with 2-3 babies, business men/women who are frequent fliers -- when is the last time you went thru airport security and saw a man (or) woman of Middle Eastern descent getting "additional attention" from security personnel ?? The 'Shoe Bomber' = we all have to take off our shoes for x-ray (including Flight Crews) - even though most machines in use today cannot detect what Richard Reed had in his shoe soles (he was boarded outside the US, on an inbound flight TO the USA). Some note was found in England indicating it might be possible to mix liquids and take it on an aircraft, but they hadn't figured out how to 'trigger' such a liquid (again, boarded outside the US, on an inbound flight TO the USA) -- no such liquid was ever placed on an aircraft - but since then "no liquids allowed thru Security" - but you can buy them on the concourse and take your liquids on the airplane no questions asked. Now, to divert attention from the miserable failings of non-US "Airport Security" all the buzz is about "full body scanners/xray machines." When are you Morons going to wake up -- the Christmas Day screw-up didn't go thru security in Amsterdam because he had already been thru 'security' in Lagos, Nigeria and as an "International Connecting Passenger" there was no requirement to do so -- "Full Body Scanners" would NOT have caught him - do you get it ??? Probably not.

Sen Chuck Schummer and the phone...

I don't care who you are, if you're on a commercial jet as a passenger and a Flight Attendant tells you to shut off your cell phone, YOU DO IT Chuck !!! Had I been the Capt of that Flight, Mr Schummer would have been escorted OFF THE PlANE ! What an absolute Moron.

"Miracle-on-the-Hudson" - IT DIDN'T HAVE TO HAPPEN!!!

OK, this is all SUPPOSITION, as I flew only Boeing 737 series (300-900) during my airline career. I know that Airbus aircraft utilize "Fly-by-Wire" aircraft controls (ailerons, elevator and rudder) as well as "Throttle-by Wire" engine thrust/power controls. The throttle/thrust levers on a Boeing are connected directly to the Engine Fuel Control -- move the throttle levers forward; more fuel goes to the engine, delivering more thrust (power). On an Airbus, move the throttle forward; the increased thrust/power demand goes by wire to the engine FADEC - Full Authority Digital Engine Control (A COMPUTER ATTACHED TO THE ENGINE FUEL CONTROL); if the Pilot's power/thrust demand is 'reasonable' for the flight conditions, determined by the FADEC from a multitude if sensor inputs, then increased fuel is fed to the engine then the Pilot's demand is satisfied and thrust increases. SUPPOSE, just suppose a flock of Canadian Geese flies into both engines. Many of the sensors feeding the engine FADEC are knocked out and/or begin to provide questionable data to the FADEC. The FADEC's "firmware/software" will not allow the engine to exceed pre-programmed limitations -- if an engine has flamed out, and the normal array of sensor information is NOT available, then the FADEC cannot assure a restart would remain within limitations AND IT (FADEC) DOES NOT ALLOW THE ENGINE TO RESTART/RELIGHT. If an engine is still running at idle (MINIMUM THRUST) to keep it within normal limitations (programmed in the FADEC) and more thrust is demanded by the Pilot in this EMERGENCY SITUATION -- the FADEC will not increase fuel to the engine because normal limitations may be exceeded -- the engine remains at idle EVEN THOUGH THE THROTTLE/THRUST LEVER MAY BE AT FULL POWER. You're at 10000 feet, with partial power Teterborough Airport is easily makeable -- Newark Int'l a strong possibility - WITH PARTIAL POWER !!! With NO POWER, we have "the Miracle on the Hudson." Capt Sullenberger and his First Officer and Flight Attendent Crew deserve every possible accolade and award that can be given and much, much more. AIRBUS, on the other hand, deserves to have every aircraft with a FADEC grounded until a FADEC OVERRIDE is certified and operational before EVER FLYING AGAIN !!!. BTW, EMBRAER (the aircraft manufacturer in Brazil) 135/145 Regional Jets were Certified by the FAA with FADECs that would shut down an engine if limits were going to be exceeded by continued operation EVEN IF ONE ENGINE WAS OUT and the remaining engine was required for a safe landing !! It is my understanding the FAA forced a change to the FADEC firmware/software so that couldn't happen AFTER THE embraer RJs HAD BEEN FLYING FOR 4-5 YEARS. Think about it.

Subaru - a "Small SUV" ???

For years and years we've heard Subaru claim their Outback model is a 'Small SUV' -- The Truth is, and always has been, it is nothing more than a SMALL, TALL STATIONWAGON !! Anything else is B.S.