SeaHawk14

I've seen this quite frequently to be honest. I saw it near the courthouse, and by Niko's oldest flat. It's pretty cool, the first time I stopped and looked, but now I just drive past, I've never seen them have a gunfight though.

The layout of the 737-4 was more modern than the previous 737-2. It had glass computer displays as opposed to gauges (displaying information about the engines), the fault came from Boeing really, because it was very small which made it hard to read at a quick glance. The BMI pilots misinterpreted it and switched off the wrong engine, and whilst it was pilot error, I think the AAIB did acknowledge the fault in the layout of the instrument, which it recommended for Boeing to fix. With this Transair it may be the same thing, they may have misinterpreted the instrument leading them to switch off the wrong engine, in the panic of it all.

I really like that! That God complex that some captains have has caused a countless amount of crashes. Myself, I would check and recheck the captains procedures, they're human, and sometimes I think the routine of it all leads to complacency. Just like I would want the pilot monitoring to double check all the things I do. Modesty can get you far I'd say. Its really tragic because the captains mistake costs all of their lives, there was an accident around my nearest airport back in 1999, where the instrument failure (ADI) mislead the captain, however the first officer did nothing to challenge the captain, despite the fact he was steering it into the ground. 4 dead because "the captain knows it all" I never considered that as a possible cause, I've always thought it would be inexperience or poor training which lead them to make fatal mistakes. Thanks for rectifying

Feb 6th 2015 Taiwan's ASC reported that the investigation so far determined from flight data and cockpit voice recorders: the aircraft received takeoff clearance at 10:51Z, in the initial climb the aircraft was handed off to departure at 10:52:33Z. At 10:52:38Z at about 1200 feet MSL, 37 seconds after becoming airborne, a master warning activated related to the failure of the right hand engine, at 10:52:43Z the left hand engine was throttled back and at 10:53:00Z the crew began to discuss engine #1 had stalled. At 10:53:06Z the right hand engine (engine #2) auto-feathered. At 10:53:12Z a first stall warning occured and ceased at 10:53:18Z. At 10:53:19Z the crew discussed that engine #1 had already feathered, the fuel supply had already been cut to the engine and decided to attempt a restart of engine #1. Two seconds later another stall warning activated. At 10:53:34Z the crew radioed "Mayday! Mayday! Engine flame out!", multiple attempts to restart the engines followed to no avail. At 10:54:34Z a second master warning activated, 0.4 seconds later both recorders stopped recording. Exactly my point, like the BMI crash, pilot error, shut down the wrong engine.

I understand your point, I know a lot of them haven't been investigated yet, thats true. However these airlines have only started emerging just recently, the accidents which I have are so recent, spanning from 2012 to now, the NTSB was able to complete their Asiana investigation much sooner due to the size of the organisation compared to the Asian counterparts. That's something I cannot help, I base my theory, because it is just a theory of course, on the reports and articles which do depict the actions of a pilot. To me it seems remarkably strange for an aircraft, especially as new as that particular ATR to drop out of the sky in such a horrendous way, without it being attributable to pilot error. It, to me, seems to follow a trend. ]

The DC-10 and 737 were extraordinary cases, highly unlikely that it's going to be a similar sort of fatal design which brought down the ATR, I mean its a possibility but seems like such a minute chance. The fact that they've taken place with different airlines and different aircraft doesn't mean too much. The three airlines are relatively new airlines which may indicate that they are recruiting their pilots but aren't up to the same safety standards or experience levels as older airlines. Just because it didn't occur on the Asian continent doesn't change anything, its not like the crew and training suddenly change when they fly over another continent, the training remains the same. Again, the whole Asian CONTINENT is experiencing a large boom in aviation, they're doing very well economically, as such they've seen a growth in regional and international airlines, and to meet that demand they've had to recruit a large amount of pilots, which may not meet the same safety standards as European or North American standards. We're talking about the B777 here, not having suffered any major incident (bar SpeedBird 38 which was a fault with the RR engines) suddenly brought down due to pilot error, and the disappearance of Malaysia 370, no one knows what's happened to that aircraft so nothing can be said of course. ATR-72 three crashes in the Asian continent, Lao attributed to pilot error, TransAsia 222 still under investigation, but authorities are questioning why the pilots proceeded to fly through such poor weather. And finally this TransAsia aircraft, we'll see what the investigation will produce. The two pilots in the Asiana aircraft had 22,000 hours combined, means nothing. It turned out the PF only had 33 hours of flying the 777 as PIC, whereas the Captain had 9000 hours as PIC. With regards to their 28,000 flight hours it may have been an inexperienced pilot, or possibly the aircraft was new to them, something that they've had little flying time with. It may be, that I see this pattern of accidents in Asia, and I'm jumping to the wrong conclusion. Thats always possible, and whilst you choose not to come up with a hypothesis, I do, I use evidence which I come across, it may not be evidence to you but it sure as hell depicts a picture for me, such rapid growth may mean compromising safety standards, thats the underlying cause of these accidents. The pilots face situations which they're unfamiliar with, such as bad weather, and make errors which cause loss of life. And yes, I was aware of the engine flameout report, I heard about that but it said it was unconfirmed. Still, a single engine flame-out on a multi-engine aircraft doesn't bring it down. Truth be told this debate can continue endlessly, my opinion isn't groundless as you make it out to be. We shall see with the emergence of new evidence and with the final investigation.

Why do people like this exist? He'll have to keep having that silicon implanted. I do wander what happens to them after a little while, whether they just lock themselves up in a basement or revert back to normality Heres another one, Kim Kardashian fan: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/british-man-spends-150-000-kim-kardashian-article-1.2049487

Yes, it happens that good pilots make mistakes, nor am I perfect, nor have I stated that I'm perfect so your assumption comes out of nowhere. What makes no sense about "until more information comes out... I'm going to continue to believe pilot error"? I'll break it down for you. It is my belief that this crash was caused by inexperience of the pilots or some critical mistakes performed within the cockpit, such as not checking load distribution, or improper training. Until more concrete evidence comes out, such as a report which proves me wrong, I'm going to continue to believe that it was pilot error. My evidence is based on a series of aircraft accidents due to poor training: Asiana 214: Caused by pilot error, the aircraft was too low and too slow, causing it to collide with the sea-wall. The inexperienced co-pilot was piloting but the captain didn't make any corrections despite the fact they were way below the glide slope. AirAsia 8501: Reports indicate that the pilots where trying to out climb a series of cumulonimbus clouds, considering those clouds can stretch up to 40km into the sky its a very big mistake. Transasia 235: It is a brand new aircraft, it's ten months old, a mechanical error is very unlikely. Sir/ Ma'am, I spend a lot of time involved with aviation, enough to come up with a likely hypothesis and be able to support my belief. Don't treat me like some kid from the YouTube comment section, because I do my research and have enough knowledge to know what I'm talking about. I read plenty of articles from many sources discusses commercial and military aviation, so it's not the case of me just watching "Air Crash Investigation" and being an "expert in that field. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I hate pilot error being the culprit. It's very sad to know that a pilot doomed his/her own aircraft and that all the relatives of the deceased will blame the pilot. Heres an article which discusses how the growth of aviation in asia poses a threat to safety: http://airinsight.com/2014/12/31/concern-asian-air-traffic-growth-future-safety/#.VNNF_kIjj8s Regards

That's my belief as well, I think there was some reports of it having suffered an engine failure, apparently an ATC transmission, but even if thats the case, its a multi-engine aircraft, they don't crash because of one engine failure. So until more information comes out and an investigation is concluded then I'm going to continue to believe pilot error. I wander when the National Geographics Air Crash Investigation will make a program based on this crash.

For my prom a few years ago, we hired a Mercedes S-Class. But if I had to choose between a BMW and a Mercedes, I'd go with the BMW, as long as its a 7 series. Limo's are overdone, a party bus seems like a really cool idea though, my friends went it that and they had more fun. With the car its only really going to be two other people. Plus if you're driving you cannot drink and your friends could throw up if they get too drunk...

With rapid economic expansion in Asia, the demand for aviation travel is soaring. It's growing so rapidly that i don't think they're properly training the pilots. I'm sure this incident will be pilot error, as will the new Air Asia A320. There's no way it'll be mechanical, I'm sure in maybe over a year these incidents will stop.

I agree with that, it is not a war to be fought on the ground, it would only backlash onto us. However constant military support from forces such as France, US & UK will support their own development. There is no way that we can try to make them Western, but we can bring an end to the unrest in the region. Support their Government and allow their own armed forces to fight back will be the best way forwards, if things are too difficult for them then they can have our support. But they should be able to count on us for support, letting them continue to spread extremism is not in our best interest. People who have been brainwashed into being martyrs and carrying out acts for their God will only see the West as a threat and will continue to attempt attacks. What I don't justify is the attitude of sit back and let it happen, "its not our problem", well it soon will be. Certainly for Europe, they can access pretty much from anywhere, even England (being an island) isn't untouchable, they can come from Turkey or Africa or Russia if they want. It's only a matter of time.

I don't think it's fair to say the war in Afghanistan was a futile one. The approach taken from ISAF, to win over "hearts and minds" and actually develop the nation has actually benefited Afghanistan. Compare economical data during the reign of the Taliban to 2010 and the values speak for themselves. Afghanistan is developing for the first time since the Soviet invasion. This is the typical "security leads to development" argument, now Afghanistan is much more stable and the Afghan government is slowly but surely making progress, with some assistance from US & EU they're getting back on their feet. Talk of war is very easy, saying "let's move in troops" is exactly what happened in Mogadishu and Iraq, and lets face it they're hardly success stories; curtailing extremism doesn't come about by just dropping Paveways. If we send over troops, we must be willing to accept that it's going to be a long term project, that it's not going to be resolved in 2 to 3 years. With insurgency, its a very difficult fight, the enemy hide amongst civilians and lay down ambushes, its not a direct war because you don't know who you're fighting, plus killing people doesn't stop others from joining that cause. The cause is poverty, both within their economy and educationally, they have poor education which is why it's very easy to make them turn to extremism. Both Syria and Libya suffered civil war due to the poverty of the people, who finally had enough, they counted on our (NATO) support to help them break free of their oppressor and I'd say we let them down. Why, as developed nations, are we justifying the slaughter of the innocent? ISIS' genocidal behavior will continue, they've slaughtered Kurds as well as many other ethnic groups. We see that on TV and go "well thats pretty bad, someone should do something about it" but are ourselves unwilling to get our nations to help? When David Cameron (PM for the UK) held a parliamentary vote to see whether the British should help Syria, they said no, allowing the slaughter to continue, tanks vs civilians. That was a low blow for humanity, we all have problems, the EU is just now recovering from the crisis, but just think of those who live in fear every day, a girl who fears execution because she is a girl, a man who has to hide his culture because ISIS have labeled him as a sinner, a Catholic who has to convert to Islam under the threat of death, they have it worse. I'd say continue the airstrikes, continue the attacks, but develop political international strategies to fix the faults, to bring an end to this war on terror which has been going on for far too long.

I'm excited for GTA V, but I'm so much more excited for a LSPDFR and the mods that will come with it! Driving the CHP Crown Vic!

Now, some European light bars are a little too big. Certainly in Italy, the Polizia Stradale use quite thick light bars, as does the German police, but I know the Polizei streamlined theirs as much as possible. Here in the UK, my local force, Metropolitan Police use very thin LED light bars. Message boards are usually placed on the light bars in european cars, in Italy "rallentare" or any custom message is displayed on the matrix on the light bar but in England they use a board set on the back window (if they use it at all). So american and English light bars are similar due to their usage.

My point was that its not aerodynamic or discrete. It probably does cause a lot of drag, the lightbars alone cause lots of drag but they're necessary and they streamline them as much as possible. The ANPR readers could be placed in a better location.

Not currently in the military, however after university I will join the RAF as a fast-jet pilot! During university I will join up as an acting pilot officer through a UAS hopefully. Although this is all based on my grades this summer

Very aerodynamic, whilst yes it's true looks don't matter, at least consider the additional fuel burn of those boxes being in the airflow. They probably end up spending the same amount on fuel as they would if they bought the better and more discrete ANPR cameras. Some UK police cars have the same sort of thing. But the majority are much better and placed in a better location:

Yes, I play it from time to time... But truth be told I'm waiting for Daniel C to release the Plaxton President, or some buses for the UK at least, I'm not all too keen on the buses they have

No that hasn't worked either. I had a back-up of 1.0c and within that you use Alt, pointing it at the vehicle, and with the QAM you have the option to "Move through" or "Stop vehicle", but with the new one I can't see anything. And the keys that you have given me haven't worked either. It may be a lost case, LCPDFR seems to have forgotten to put it in the new one perhaps?