Tag Archives: Flight

An American Airlines Captain Just Did Something Resourceful and Kind for Every Single Passenger on His Flight. His Stunning Story Went Viral
September 9, 2018 12:00 pm|Comments (0)

Wichita Falls is a city of about 100,000 people in northeast Texas. It looks like there’s a lot of stunning natural beauty nearby.

But what the airport at Wichita Falls doesn’t have, apparently, is a place to get a nice meal near the airport, especially if 100 or more people unexpectedly show up all at once.

This became relevant last week, when American Airlines flight 2354 from Los Angeles to Dallas-Fort Worth was diverted there due to extreme thunderstorms. Passengers were looking at the likelihood of having to scramble to find a place to stay overnight, to say nothing of finding a bite to eat.

And the captain on their flight came up with a very simple solution.

In short, he called up the local Papa John’s and ordered 40 pizzas for his 159 passengers. As far as we know, he fronted the entire bill, $ 500 or more, himself. And his simple gesture went viral.

The captain’s name: Jeff Raines, according to CNN. His actions–in fact the moments when he found himself running back and forth from the terminal to the Papa John’s delivery car–was all captured on video by an airport worker named Josh Raines (no indication they’re related).

As Josh explained later in his Twitter feed, the passengers were going to travel the rest of the way to Dallas via bus. But Wichita Falls Municipal Airport is actually a mostly military airport, attached to Sheppard Air Force Base. It’s just not equipped for a sudden, unexpected influx of passengers.

Jeff Raines (the captain) apparently followed the whole thing up with an explanation on Facebook:

Thanks for the compliments however this was a “TEAM” effort. My First Officer was on the telephone with crew tracking / hotel desk arranging for our release and hotels for the entire crew.

The Flight Attendants manned a galley cart from the aircraft serving waters, juice, and sodas to all the passengers in the terminal. All while the Envoy SPS Personnel were arranging for a bus, re-booking flights, and answering a flurry of questions from these passengers.

Thanks to everyone for your help – there is no “I” in TEAM.

It’s unclear whether the passengers continued to Dallas via bus, as both Josh Raines and Jeff Raines seem to have suggested, or if they flew there the next morning, as American corporate P.R. says. I suspect it’s possible some passengers might have continued on to Dallas via bus; others waited for the flight the next day.

But the real point here is an airline employee taking it upon himself to do something that’s clearly not listed in the American Airlines handbook, but that has a lot of potential to increase passengers’ affinity for the airline.

We’ve seen this repeatedly lately, for example with the Southwest Airlines captain who rerouted a flight to enable a passenger to get an amazing photo of the Great American Eclipse in 2017, and the Southwest flight attendant who worked to allow a passenger who has Down syndrome to fulfill her dream, at least for a day, of working as a flight attendant.

These little actions help any business’s reputation, and they often pay big dividends. For its pilot’s $ 500 pizza outlay, American clearly got a lot more than $ 500 worth of brand equity or marketing.

It doesn’t even really matter if the passengers like pizza. Simply by making the effort, the captain bought goodwill.

“We are always proud of our crew members who take great care of our customers who fly on American Airlines,” American said in an email. “We are fortunate that our crew members are the best in the business.”


Posted in: Uncategorized|Tags:
Southwest's Apology to Passengers on Flight 1380 Is Brilliant, and It's Not Just the Cash. Here's Why
April 21, 2018 6:05 pm|Comments (0)

For the passengers who survived the emergency landing on Southwest Flight 1380 this week, on which Jennifer Riordan died, the flight must have been a horrifying experience. 

The pilot and copilot have had been hailed as heroes, and Southwest CEO Gary Kelly was praise for the fast apology and condolence statement he offered via video. But you can imagine that the airline might want to continue to respond to the affected passengers quickly.

Apparently, it has. Even as the federal investigation into the incident continues, Southwest reportedly sent letters with personal apologies and quick compensation to passengers from Flight 1380 just a day after the emergency.

Obviously, any big company that faced a debacle like this needs to do something similar and quick.  Many do, but only in exchange for people offering to drop all claims against the company (more on whether that’s happening here, in a second).

But there’s something interesting in how Southwest handled the issue–a combination of what they offered, and how they worded the apology letter, as reported, signed by Kelly:

We value you as our customer and hope you will allow us another opportunity to restore your confidence in Southwest as the airline you can count on for your travel needs. … In this spirit, we are sending you a check in the amount of $ 5,000 to cover any of your immediate financial needs.

As a tangible gesture of our heartfelt sincerity, we are also sending you a $ 1,000 travel voucher…

Our primary focus and commitment is to assist you in every way possible.

What leaps out at me is, oddly, the smallest financial part of the compensation: the $ 1,000 travel voucher. (Although, it’s funny: psychologically people sometimes put a higher subjective value on a tangible thing valued at a certain amount, then they do on cash.)

Even in the wake of tragedy, Southwest is taking steps to try to keep these customers–as customers. 

As some commenters have pointed out, while the uncontained engine failure aboard flight 1380 was terrifying for passengers, and resulted in loss of life and injury, it’s by no means the first time a flight suffered a similar catastrophe and ultimately landed.

Commercial airlines like a 737 are designed to be able to fly with one of the engines disabled, and professional aircrew train and drill on what to do in this kind of situation. The emergency was deftly handled by Captain Tammie Jo Shults and first officer Darren Ellisor.

Part of why this story was so widely reported however, is that passengers were immediately sharing it on social media. One passenger famously paid $ 8 for inflight WiFi even while he thought the plane was going to crash, so that he could broadcast on Facebook Live what was happening and say a farewell to friends and family.

So, connect this to the travel vouchers. Beyond taking a step toward repairing the relationship with these passengers, what better PR result could Southwest hope for than some positive travel experiences and social media posts from one of them, as a result? 

I wouldn’t expect Southwest to articulate this rationale; that would actually undercut it. And, I do have a couple of other questions about how this all works, for which I’ve reached out to Southwest for answers. I’ll update this post when I hear back.

For example, I would assume that the family of the passenger who died on the flight, Jennifer Riordan, would be treated differently, and maybe also the seven passengers who reportedly were injured. 

There’s also the question of whether these are really just goodwill payments, or a way to quickly settle 100 or more potential claims against the airline. If it’s the more traditional, transactional legal strategy of just trying to settle claims quickly, then that undercuts a lot of this.

However, I’m judging based on the experience of one passenger, Eric Zilbert of Davis, California, that this might not be the case. Zilbert reportedly checked with a lawyer before accepting the compensation,” to make sure I didn’t preclude anything.” Based on the lawyer’s advice, went ahead and did so.

Of course, this doesn’t mean every passenger is happy with the gesture. For example, Marty Martinez of Dallas, the passenger who became famous after he livestreamed the emergency landing over Facebook Live, said he’s not satisfied.

“I didn’t feel any sort of sincerity in the email whatsoever, and the $ 6,000 total that they gave to each passenger I don’t think comes even remotely close to the price that many of us will have to pay for a lifetime.”

Even so, Southwest sort of got what they’d probably like to see in his case, anyway: a tangible demonstration that despite the experience aboard Flight 1380, he’s willing to fly with the airline again.

The proof? He gave his quote to an Associated Press reporter, the account said, “as he prepared to board a Southwest flight from New York.”


Posted in: Uncategorized|Tags:
FlyNYON Helicopter Crash: Inside the Safety Issues of the Fatal Flight
April 8, 2018 6:02 pm|Comments (0)

Hoisted into the air by a crane, the mock helicopter cabin swayed above the water in total silence. I sat inside, as tense as the four-point harness holding me in place. Then everything went dark. Wind from giant commercial fans roared toward us to replicate the downwash from a main rotor, water sprayed in from every angle, and we fell into a deep, barely lit indoor pool below, water suddenly pouring in from every opening. The fuselage began rotating upside-down as the operator, standing poolside with a remote control, drove the mechanized rotation ring that sent us spinning. I took a deep breath just before the water reached my neck. As water flooded my nasal cavity for at least the 12th time that day, I fought the urge to unhook my seatbelts and break for the surface. Trying to escape while the aircraft is spinning in the water is a sure way to disorient yourself and minimize your chance of survival.

So I waited an eternal 10 seconds until the movement ceased. Now sitting in an upside-down helicopter in 10 feet of water and in total darkness—you’re trained to close your eyes anyway, to prevent fuel or hydraulic fluid from getting in them and because visuals can be confusing in those conditions—I unhooked my harness, easily twisting the quick-release buckle, and scooted across two rows of seats to the other side of the fuselage. Using my memory and hands as guides, I searched for the lever that would unlock the window, allowing me to push it out and swim to the surface.

A helicopter crash-simulator operated by Survival Systems USA trains military and commercial helicopter crews to escape from a helicopter inverted in the water. The author participated in the training to gain insight into the passengers’ experience during the East River crash.

Eric Adams

By this point in the day, I had suffered through multiple variations of this exercise, first in shallow water cages and then this full simulation in the deep water, each time struggling to keep my cool, move methodically, and punch myself out. Still, panic began to set in as my body begged for oxygen and my hand groped about in vain.

I had come to this simulator, run by Survival Systems USA in Groton, Connecticut, to get a sense of what it might have been like in the water for the five passengers of the FlyNYON helicopter that crashed into New York City’s East River on March 11. I got the confusion, disorientation, and panic, but my experience was nothing like theirs. I had been trained. I had instructors inches away and safety divers floating nearby. I was in a warm pool, rather than frigid river water. And I wore a harness I easily undid when it was time to move.

During the progressively more challenging training, students learn to keep their composure and work methodically to escape from a sunken aircraft.

Eric Adams

So my imagination filled the gaps between my simulator experience and their real life crash, a process made all the more chilling because I had been so close to their fate. As it happened, I was also flying with FlyNYON on the night of March 11, in a different helicopter but with the same group and at the same time.

In the hour leading up to our departure, I sat through the same preflight safety briefing as the victims. We exchanged easy, excited banter as we got ready to take our open-door, sunset photo flights. I wore the same harness they did, the kind that locked me to the aircraft via a thick tether but that didn’t have a quick-release buckle that untrained passengers might accidentally activate while leaning out to take photos.

I can now sense something of what the final moments would have been like for the victims aboard N350LH—the helicopter’s tail number—absent, of course, the reality. That is, the crushing realization that they weren’t going to make it out alive. Nothing can simulate that.

The Crash

The flight was supposed to be all fun and games—an exciting, doors-off, wind-in-your-hair helicopter ride above Manhattan that would yield gorgeous sunset images of the city. It’s a service that FlyNYON has offered for a few years now, and the dramatic aerial shots have become a staple for Instagrammers, many of whom function as unofficial ambassadors for the company.

FlyNYON had already provided closed-door aerial flights for tourists and charter flights for individual, professional photographers and video productions. It now adopted the hashtag #shoeselfie—used for fun shots of feet hanging out of the helicopter with the city below—as its signature take-home for the new swarms of amateur photographers going for the open-door upgrade. The new business model worked, and FlyNYON expanded operations to Miami, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas. It recently opened a sleek new terminal for its New York location.

But in the wake of the accident, it now appears, based on the startlingly quick regulatory reaction from the FAA, feedback from industry experts, a lawsuit from the family of one of the victims, internal company emails obtained and reviewed by WIRED in conjunction with industry publication Vertical, and my own observations of the preflight safety briefing and the flight itself that when that helicopter hit the water in what should have been a wet but entirely survivable landing, its five passengers nevertheless had little chance of making it out alive.

According to a preliminary report from the National Transportation Safety Board, the helicopter initially encountered trouble above Central Park, when the engine suddenly lost power. (At this point, though our two helicopters had flown together to the Statue of Liberty, where I took photos of the accident aircraft, we had separated. I didn’t witness the accident, but appear to have captured its entry into the water inadvertently while photographing above the East River.)

This photo, captured from a FlyNYON flight that took off at the same time as the accident helicopter, appears to show the aircraft just before touching down in the water.

Eric Adams

The pilot soon realized that fuel to the engine had been cut off: According to the NTSB’s preliminary report, a passenger had apparently leaned back to take a shoe selfie and his tether got caught underneath the emergency fuel cutoff lever, activating it. Pilot Richard Vance tried to restart the engine, but had to quickly resign himself to the fact that his aircraft was going down. Though close to Central Park, he decided there were too many people there, so he opted instead for ditching in the East River. With its rotors freewheeling in the airstream, Vance aimed the chopper in that direction. He adjusted the rotor’s speed and angle to bring it down as slowly and as upright as possible, a maneuver called an autorotation that takes advantage of the fact the spinning rotors still generate enough lift for a controlled descent. He radioed in to the air traffic controllers at the nearest airport. Twice, the controllers asked him to repeat his transmission, to the point that a nearby pilot—mine, in fact—interjected: “He had an engine failure over the East River. That was a mayday, LaGuardia.”

With the East River coming up fast, Vance deployed the inflatable pontoons on the skids, designed to help keep the Liberty Helicopters-owned Airbus AS350-B2, chartered by FlyNYON, afloat long enough for the occupants to evacuate. The front right pontoon, however, failed to fully inflate, though it’s still unclear whether that was due to a defect, maintenance issue, or simply being deployed too late.

The helicopter hit the water hard, but not fatally so, and immediately rolled in the direction of the underinflated pontoon. Frigid water flowed in from the right side of the aircraft, filling the fuselage in seconds. Vance hit the center buckle on his restraints, freeing himself. His five passengers, however, each wore harnesses that were attached to the helicopter by tethers, secured via locking carabiners to metal rings between their shoulder blades. To unlock the carabiners, passengers would have had to locate the metal sleeve-like screw-lock behind their back and twist it until it was unlocked—though passengers would not have known how many twists that would have taken or even at what point the carabiner would have been unlocked. Vance tried desperately to free Trevor Cadigan, the passenger next to him, but he later told investigators that he had to give up as water flooded the cabin and the helicopter continued to pitch over. (Through an intermediary, he indicated he did not want to talk to the press.) He made it to the surface, climbed onto the inverted chopper, and began trying to signal for help.

His passengers were not so fortunate. Pinned by their restraints, Trevor Cadigan, Brian McDaniel, Carla Blanco, Tristan Hill, and Daniel Thompson, all in their 20s and 30s, drowned.

When individuals without training find themselves in a situation like a cold-water landing, the challenges stack up fast, says Jon Ehm, the training coordinator at Survival Systems USA. “The first thing an untrained person might have trouble with is avoiding injury—so keeping their head, legs, and arms in the brace position,” Ehm says. “Then disorientation is a huge factor. You experience an abrupt stop, a violent rolling over of the helicopter, and then the water ingress and the loss of visual references. Then you have to deal with your harness. Some people might be able to retain enough information from their briefing to get out, others might not retain anything.”

The crash and their deaths raise many questions: If the passenger’s tether did trigger the fuel cutoff switch, how did that happen so easily? Why were there so many fatalities in a seemingly survivable accident? And, are these newly popular open-door helicopter flights, and tourist flights in general, as safe as they could be?

The Safety Briefing

Though the Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation Safety Board are investigating the cause of the crash—as a witness, I provided a statement to the NTSB—their immediate actions have centered on the survivability question. Within a week, the FAA announced it would halt all open-door flights that use harnesses without quick-release mechanisms, citing the challenges of escape even in incidents on land, particularly if there’s a fire. Now, investigators will examine, among other things, the way FlyNYON briefs passengers for its flights, and what equipment it uses to secure them.

FlyNYON was operating three simultaneous flights that night: the one that would crash, the one I was in—both 30-minute sunset flights—and a third shorter flight, at just 15 minutes. We passengers sat through the same safety briefing, which consisted mostly of a chirpy and enthusiastic video that lasted less than 5 minutes. It showed the harness setup and the fact that there was a knife attached that we could use to cut the tether in an emergency. As I have since confirmed with a fellow passenger, FlyNYON personnel didn’t reinforce any of the information as we geared up and boarded, nor did they ask me or others in my helicopter to practice releasing ourselves from our restraints in case of an emergency.

Vance, the pilot, told investigators he gave his passengers specific instructions for using the knife to cut themselves free from their harnesses if necessary. But on my helicopter, nobody showed me where my knife was, explained how my tether was connected to the aircraft, or told me how to cut myself free if I needed to.

The ground crews attached personal flotation devices to us just a minute or two before we boarded. They didn’t explain how they functioned or how to use them, and we didn’t receive even the most basic helicopter safety instructions, such as to stay away from the tail rotor and to watch out for the main rotor if you have to evacuate in an emergency and find yourself on uneven terrain that might bring you dangerously close to it—all instructions I’ve received on every previous helicopter flight I’ve taken. We received no instructions for what to do in the event of an emergency landing on land or water. We had no microphones to communicate with the pilot, so we could only hear him talking to us. (A fellow passenger confirms my memory of this.)

Professional photographers and others who use harnesses in helicopters usually go through thorough training for how to use them and how to evacuate in an emergency. “When I go in the air I typically have between $ 6,000 and $ 7,000 worth of safety equipment attached to me. There’s a flight helmet, a life jacket woven into my $ 2,500 harness, a temporary air supply, and a seat belt cutter,” says Ryan Mason, an aviation photographer and publisher of industry magazine Collective. “I’ve had egress training in an emergency. When you land in water like they had in New York, it may be nice and blue on the surface, but underneath it’s nothing but black. I’ve done it before, but the first time, people completely freak out. That’s why you practice—you want to give people more than a fighting chance.”

Neither FlyNYON, which markets and sells the tours, nor Liberty Helicopters, the charter service FlyNYON uses for its New York flights, has responded to requests for comment, referring all media queries to the FAA or the NTSB. (That’s fairly standard procedure following aviation accidents.)

The Harness & the Knife

The parents of one of the victims, Trevor Cadigan, brought what is likely to be just the first lawsuit in the case just days after the crash. The suit, filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, names FlyNYON, Liberty Helicopters, Vance, Airbus, and others associated with the flight, as defendants. It alleges that FlyNYON used harnesses that could not be easily removed, that it failed to provide an adequate pre-flight safety briefing, and that the “policy of providing a knife to each passenger to cut through their harness to extricate themselves is grossly negligent and reckless.”

There’s evidence that FlyNYON was already on notice that their safety systems had problems. According to internal emails reviewed by WIRED, the company’s own pilots had recently raised concerns about the safety of the harness and tether system. These emails suggest a contentious relationship between FlyNYON CEO Patrick Day, Jr. and the pilots on both his staff and Liberty’s, and appear to show that Day suppressed their concerns. In a report published April 7 by helicopter industry magazine Vertical, special projects editor Elan Head disclosed internal emails she has received from an anonymous source close to the company—later provided to The New York Times, which also published a piece. (WIRED reached out to FlyNYON after news of the emails broke, and has not heard back, though the company did release this statement.) I also met with the source in order to verify the person’s identity and the emails’ authenticity, and to provide background and insight into the companies’ operations.

According to those emails, some FlyNYON and Liberty pilots cited shortcomings with the yellow harnesses used on passengers—inexpensive models manufactured primarily for construction use, according to Vertical’s source, others in the industry, and my own observations—and expressed a preference for more expensive “blue” harnesses, manufactured by Air Rescue Systems. These were more adjustable, allowing for better fits, particularly on smaller passengers. They also had more accessible anchor points for the tether attachment, including spots on the front and at the waist, making it much easier for passengers to release themselves in an emergency. In an email from January 17 of this year, Day wrote: “Pilots … Let me be clear, this isn’t a safety issue with the harnesses, the pilot may not query about the harness.” Later, he wrote, “The yellow harnesses are just as legal/safe as the blue.”

Technically, Day is correct: The harnesses are not illegal, as at that point the FAA hadn’t actually addressed them, or, specifically, their relatively new and as-yet uncommon use among untrained consumers in open-door flights. Indeed the aviation administration raised no comment about the harnesses during an inspection visit last year. Still, concerns weighed heavily on the pilots’ minds, the emails show. In February, after one again spoke up about the harnesses and the personnel who conduct the safety briefings, fit the harnesses on passengers, and transported them to the helicopters, Day reacted harshly. “I’m insulted by the manner at which you address my team,” he wrote in an email obtained by Head and reviewed by WIRED. “My team worked and works their ass off today and every day. It’s the month of February when all other operators in NY had most of their fleet parked today with zero flights. Instead of saying thank you you point out the bad and act as if we didn’t think of these solutions. NYON is Liberty’s biggest customer (and growing) and you talk to us as if we are a bunch of dumbasses.”

The Cadigan family attorney expressed grave concern in reaction to the emails. “I showed these emails to my clients. They are astounded and frightened,” said attorney Gary Robb. “Based on this reporting, it has become abundantly clear that this company was well aware of the true nature of these risks and proceeded with knowledge of those risks.”

A number of pilots and aviation experts we spoke to say it’s not the doors that are the problem with this sort of flight, but the harnesses and the tethers used. Other internal FlyNYON emails also noted basic incompatibilities with the tethers and the knives—that the provided hook-style belt cutters couldn’t actually slice the thick tethers without significant effort and practice on the part of the user. (I verified this by duplicating the setup—and couldn’t slice the tether with the knife that would have been included on my vest.)

In general, open-door flights are common in helicopter aviation, and could still be staged with passengers properly belted into quick-release, four-point harnesses in their seats. They would just have to give up the ability to lean out of the aircraft as they would when wearing a tethered harness to allow them to snap that #shoeselfie and watch the likes roll in. But even that solution is problematic, the experts argue. After all, it’s one thing for trained professionals to know how to avoid accidentally releasing themselves from their quick-release seat restraints and falling out; it’s quite another to assume a helicopter full of giddy tourists could do the same.

The advantage of being harnessed to the helicopter, but not buckled to a seat: Stunning overhead images of the city. The risk: Not being able to escape in an emergency.

Eric Adams

The FAA’s emergency order now prohibits the use of open-door flights without quick-release harnesses, a rule that specifically targets the inexpensive construction-grade harnesses used by FlyNYON. The blue ARS harnesses referred to earlier have more accessible anchor points but aren’t technically “quick release” models. That said, other options do exist—assuming they could be validated for use with the average civilian passenger: “There are models out there for open-door flight that prevent people from falling out, and might have two-stage quick-release function that they can release with one hand, but it still has a redundant mechanism to make sure you’re not freed too easily. We have 50 years of evolution behind these systems,” says Survival Systems’ Ehm.

Indeed, the idea of offering such flights to the average consumer looking for a novel experience they can share on social media has many in the helicopter industry questioning the even more fundamental idea of whether such customers can be expected to save themselves in even the best conditions, particularly given the inherent risks present in low-altitude aviation in busy areas. Though overall, fatal helicopter accident rates have fallen in recent years—the FAA reports that between 2013 and 2016, the number of fatal accidents per year dropped from 30 to 17—a 2014 study published by the Aerospace Medical Association found that helicopter air tours, which typically are in popular and congested areas, crash more often than similar commercial passenger operations. Their accident rates are comparable, in fact, to those among flights conducted by medevac services and offshore oil rig transportation, both of which often fly in more treacherous conditions than air tours.

Beyond whatever the investigations learn about these two companies, the helicopter industry itself has begun examining tourist flight activities with greater scrutiny, regardless of whether the doors are on or off. In early February, a sightseeing helicopter crashed in the Grand Canyon, killing five and severely burning two. Though the FAA requires crash-resistant fuel tanks on registered helicopters made after 1994—they separate passengers from possible fuel tank rupture during a crash—the NTSB estimates that only 15 percent of American helicopters in this range are fully compliant. Retrofit kits for helicopter models like the ones that crashed in the Grand Canyon and the East River only became available last year, and can cost over $ 100,000, so a much smaller percentage of these helicopters, which are popular with tour operators, likely have protection against post-crash fires. It’s not clear yet whether the aircraft in either of these recent accidents were compliant. In the Grand Canyon alone, hundreds of flights come and go each day, and 50 people have died in crashes there in the last 15 years.

Of course, the average consumer wouldn’t know of such risks—or the assorted nuances of regulatory compliance—when walking into FlyNYON’s gleaming new terminal in New Jersey, with its bar for parties and corporate events, a room with virtual reality gear for flight demonstrations, and a “command center” with monitors on the wall showing maps of the city and lots of workstations lined up in rows beneath them. Though hokey, such glossy presentations do indeed inspire confidence. Had everyone there fully grasped the risks we were about to undertake, however, it seems unlikely that confidence would have persisted.

In the Tank

Back in the pool, a week after the crash and with the emotions of the experience still fresh in my mind, I learned how critical every second can be in an escape—and thus how vital it is to maintain your composure. As I searched for the lever to unlock the faux helicopter’s window, quickly reaching the limit of my breath-holding capability, fear and panic proved difficult to suppress. But I remembered to keep calm and work methodically. I finally found the lever. I pushed out the window and swam to the surface, my own modestly harrowing ordeal over. In near-freezing water, with no instruction, and, most importantly, in a harness so difficult to undo that a knife is your best option, a real crash would be far more terrifying.

During our class, which consisted of myself and about a dozen National Guard personnel who fly in Blackhawk helicopters, I asked instructor Dan McInnis how long someone could last in water conditions such as one would find in the East River in March. “You have a good chance of surviving, especially in a metro area with emergency services right there,” he said. “The gasp reflex hits people fast in cold water, but if you can get out you’ll have 10 to 20 minutes of useful functionality in your body before you go into true physical distress.”

The five passengers aboard N350LH never made it that far. Instead, they were tied inescapably to their overturned helicopter. Anchored to an anchor, they never had a chance.


Posted in: Uncategorized|Tags:
Rocket Lab Test Flight Launches Three CubeSats to Orbit
January 21, 2018 6:00 am|Comments (0)

The launch company Rocket Lab has amusing names for its missions. The first, in May, was called “It’s a Test” (it was). When the staff debated what to call the second launch of their diminutive Electron rocket, so sized (and priced) specifically to carry small satellites to space, they said, “Well, we’re still testing, aren’t we?”

They were. And so “Still Testing” became the name of Rocket Lab’s second launch, which took place on January 20, at around 8:45 pm Eastern Standard Time. In December, the company canceled multiple attempts before rescheduling the launch window for 2018. The livestreamed rocket lifted off from the Mahia Peninsula in New Zealand, headed for someplace with an even better view.

Despite the uncertainty surrounding the launch (or any test launch, for that matter), the rocket was carrying real payloads for real customers: three small satellites, one for a company that images Earth and two for one that monitors weather and ship traffic. But why on Earth would a satellite company choose a rocket-in-progress when there are so many reliable launchers out there? After all, even established rockets blow up sometimes.

Rocket Lab

The short answer is that smallsats—which the Electron was built to transport, exclusively—are by nature expendable. Smallsat makers like Planet and Spire, the two clients on this mission, have ever-growing, genetically similar populations of orbiters. So losing one or two in a less-than-successful test flight? Probably worth the risk. Smallsat companies are willing to put their hardware on this particular liftoff line because the Electron is poised to be the first commercially bookable rocket built specifically for small payloads, which typically have to piggyback on big, expensive rockets with big, expensive payloads that don’t launch often enough and aren’t always headed to their orbit of choice. In the next decade, 3,483 small satellites (between 1 and 100 kilograms) will go to space, generating just over $ 2 billion of launch revenue, according to the Small Satellite Markets, 4th edition report, which research and consulting firm Northern Sky Research released last month. In this future world where thousands more smallsats provide environmental, economic, and even political intelligence, as well as Earth-covering internet, the test-steps necessary to get on up to space quickly, cheaply, and precisely seem worth the risk not just to Planet and Spire but, perhaps, to you and me.

But boy, was there risk. While Rocket Lab’s first Electron didn’t explode and did reach space—and so gets at least an A- for its first attempt—“It’s a Test” didn’t quite get to orbit. After an investigation, Rocket Lab determined that, four minutes post-blastoff, ground equipment (provided by a third party) temporarily stopped talking to the rocket. When communication breaks down, Official Procedures demand that safety officials stop the flight. And so they did..

But the rocket itself, according to the same investigation, was sound—so the company moved on to a test delivery. “It’s really the next logical step,” says Peter Beck, Rocket Lab’s founder.

Beck seems uncannily logical about the risks his young company is taking. When asked about his feelings about launching actual stuff on “Still Testing,” he replied that doing so certainly involved extra actual tasks. “I’m not sure if you can become extra nervous or extra excited,” he said. That sentiment fits with the launches’ pragmatic names. And those fit with New Zealanders’ general pragmatic streak, says Beck (he cites some of the country’s names for flowing water: “River One,” “River Two,” “River Three”).

For their part, Planet and Spire are here for that no-nonsense-ness. Planet already has around 200 satellites in orbit, so adding one to its flock of so-called “Doves” would be good but not critical. Besides, says Mike Safyan, Planet’s director of launch, “we picked one we wouldn’t miss too much”: a sat named Pioneer. It’s a double meaning, says Safyan. First, it’s an homage to NASA’s old missions, on whose shoulders they stand.

Second meaning: They are pioneers. “There is this New Space wave that Planet is very much at the forefront of and Rocket Lab is very much at the forefront of,” says Safyan.

This is what the forefront looks like, by the way: You can book space on an Electron rocket online—just click the size of your smallsat!—the same basic way you’d book a bunk on Airbnb.

Spire, too, is into it. Jenny Barna met Peter Beck before she had her current job, as the director of launch at Spire, whose satellites aim to keep track of aeronautical and nautical-nautical traffic, as well as weather. Back in her days at SSL, which makes spacecraft and communications systems, a coworker invited her to a presentation Beck was giving on-site. She listened to Beck describe Rocket Lab’s technology, and his vision for a vehicle that provided frequent, affordable launches just for little guys—in an industry that caters to huge sats, and makes smallsats second-class passengers—and she was intrigued. “I remember sitting there thinking how lucky I am to be working at this industry at this time,” she says. And after she moved to Spire, she led the company to sign on as one of Rocket Lab’s first customers. It’s currently contracted for up to 12 launches.

That’s a lot! But Spire has to launch a lot. The company wants access to space every month, so they can produce their satellites in small batches, send them up, iterate, and launch the next generation. So far, counting today, Spire has launched 541 satellites. They’ve done it on the rockets of Russia (Soyuz and Dnepr), Japan (H-IIB), and India (PSLV), and the rockets of the US’s Orbital (Antares) and ULA (Atlas V). And now, they’ll ride with Rocket Lab, picking on a rocket of their own satellites’ size.

But that doesn’t mean they’ll ever only use Rocket Lab. Or Orbital. Or ULA. They plan to keep their eggs distributed—partly because even when it’s not just a test, rockets still blow up, the eggs breaking along with them. “It’s just part of the industry,” says Barna.

When Barna spoke of “Still Testing” a few days before the initial launch window, she was straight-up about the possibility that this particular rocket wouldn’t carry the eggs safely to space. “We know that a million things have to go perfectly for this to be successful,” she said. “We hope they make history.”

They did, and deployed the three-satellite payload into orbit. And pending analysis of this seemingly successful test, Rocket Lab will skip its planned third test and jump straight into official operations, in early 2018. “We’ve got a lot of customers that need to get on orbit,” says Beck.

Suggestion for the third flight’s name: “This Is Not a Test.”

1UPDATE 12:08 AM EST 1/21/2018: This story has been updated to include new satellites Rocket Lab launched recently.


Posted in: Uncategorized|Tags:
Lil Wayne Suffers Seizures Aboard Flight: Epilepsy Or Sizzurp?
July 2, 2016 3:55 am|Comments (0)

Lil Wayne suffered a seizure while on a flight traveling from Wisconsin to California on Monday. The 33-year-old rapper reportedly blacked out and the pilot of his private jet was forced to make an emergency landing in Omaha, Nebraska.  Wayne will be kept overnight in the hospital. The “How to Love” rapper was seen by […]

Source: http://stupidcelebrities.net/2016/06/lil-wayne-suffers-seizures-aboard-flight-epilepsy-sizzurp/

Ciara Cindy Crawford Cindy Taylor Cinthia Moura Claudette Ortiz Coco Lee

All articles

Posted in: Uncategorized|Tags:
8 Things You Must Do When Your Flight Is Cancelled Or Delayed
November 4, 2015 3:50 am|Comments (0)

Cloud Computing

Posted in: Uncategorized|Tags: