Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

b737800tuifly

2 Questions for PMDG

Recommended Posts

1. will the NGX have ground-strobes?(for those who dont know "groundStrobes")

this effect seen on the groundand 2. will the NGX have traffic cones? would be a nice littl feature, that always brings more realismus. :) thanks in advance!

Share this post


Link to post

They have already posted pics with the strobes reflecting off the ground at night. Check the pic in this link.https://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/photo.php?fbid=207418225964636&set=a.206603396046119.55693.165758250130634&type=1&theater

Share this post


Link to post

The strobes/beacons lighting up the ground are already there.What are "traffic cones"?

Share this post


Link to post

AHaha traffic cones?? Just%20Kidding.gifStrobe lights looking good...

Share this post


Link to post

I think by traffic cones, he means at the gate? I notice that some aircraft parked at the gate have an orange cone behind the airplane, aka Delta does that I know for sure...Not really sure what the point of it is, though...

Share this post


Link to post
I think by traffic cones, he means at the gate? I notice that some aircraft parked at the gate have an orange cone behind the airplane, aka Delta does that I know for sure...Not really sure what the point of it is, though...
I wouldn't be surprised if it's to let other planes know that spot is taken & they have to park somewhere else...

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe traffic cones in the sense you put them around the bird when you have fuel cells open, or the bird is on jacks? Don't know what purpose that would serve.. Is all we use them for where I work is to mark off when aircraft are going through the above so people do not enter/climb on the aircraft in case it blows up, or falls off the jacks.

Share this post


Link to post
The strobes/beacons lighting up the ground are already there.What are "traffic cones"?
thats EPIC news!! thanks..god.(dont know why, but those strobe effects, very important for me :D).haha sooo cant wait !but u know what i mean with "traffic cones" :D (just a small feature, i know)look here:

Share this post


Link to post
I think by traffic cones, he means at the gate? I notice that some aircraft parked at the gate have an orange cone behind the airplane, aka Delta does that I know for sure...Not really sure what the point of it is, though...
I wouldn't be surprised if it's to let other planes know that spot is taken & they have to park somewhere else...
Maybe traffic cones in the sense you put them around the bird when you have fuel cells open, or the bird is on jacks? Don't know what purpose that would serve.. Is all we use them for where I work is to mark off when aircraft are going through the above so people do not enter/climb on the aircraft in case it blows up, or falls off the jacks.
We put cones there around the wing tips, engines and sometimes the nose of the plane so that who ever is driving around the plane, they don't "accidentally" hit the plane. It gives a little more clearance than you would have if there weren't any cones. Well that's how it is in JFK. Not so sure about in other airports/countries.

Share this post


Link to post
We put cones there around the wing tips, engines and sometimes the nose of the plane so that who ever is driving around the plane, they don't "accidentally" hit the plane. It gives a little more clearance than you would have if there weren't any cones. Well that's how it is in JFK. Not so sure about in other airports/countries.
Depends on the ground handling company and how the contract is laid out. I know UAX does the same, regardless of the ground handling agent. They definitely do it here at IAD. With the larger jets, though, I don't recall any cones.

Share this post


Link to post
Depends on the ground handling company and how the contract is laid out. I know UAX does the same, regardless of the ground handling agent. They definitely do it here at IAD. With the larger jets, though, I don't recall any cones.
Well Large airliners (A346, A380, A330, B747) in JFK (Terminal 4 where I work) also require cones no matter what. When I used to work for UPS, their planes (757, 767 and the A300) also required having cones around them. I guess it does depend on the ground handling company Thinking.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Strobes are already provided as they are an integral part of the aircraft lighting system and are provided to increase an aircraft's visibility. However it is their use that is important. In Australia at least, and probably elsewhere, strobes on air carrier aircraft are not used on the apron or on taxiways going to or from the runway. They are turned on crossing a runway and when entering the runway prior to take-off. They are turned off on exiting the runway after landing. The reason for not using them on the ground is because of the extreme brightness of the strobes and the effect they could have on the eyesight of flight crew of other aircraft.Neil Bradley

Share this post


Link to post

When we left Mexico (sorry for the size, no idea how to make em smaller:P3270702.jpgOn a side note, that big Mexican in the reflective vest was NOT happy that I took a picture of the plane.

Share this post


Link to post
On a side note, that big Mexican in the reflective vest was NOT happy that I took a picture of the plane.
I did the same once a few years ago while on the tarmac. Took a picture (Qantas 737-800) and some lady in a vest came running up in a angry tone telling me I am not allowed to take photos due to fire risk with the Jet fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
I did the same once a few years ago while on the tarmac. Took a picture (Qantas 737-800) and some lady in a vest came running up in a angry tone telling me I am not allowed to take photos due to fire risk with the Jet fuel.
I would think there would be more of a chance of static from clothes, than from a camera. But least now I have an explanation, thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
I did the same once a few years ago while on the tarmac. Took a picture (Qantas 737-800) and some lady in a vest came running up in a angry tone telling me I am not allowed to take photos due to fire risk with the Jet fuel.
According to Wiki, it's possible, althougth it's [Citation Needed] . I would think you'd have a higher risk from someone's keys hitting something. Also, I highly doubt that any airline would board an airliner if there was a risk of the passengers accidentally starting a fire.

Share this post


Link to post

How would a camera's flash ignite fuel vapors or jet fuel? I mean, realistically, isn't there a compression-chamber connected to a fuel line that shoots FIRE into said fuel? At 500+ Celsius?Let me know, I'm curious in learning the reason those whom are "in-the-know" say this.

Share this post


Link to post

A camera isn't intrinsically safe, in other words it's not sealed, so if some loose vapor got into the camera, and you turned it on, and when you turned it on there was a tiny spark between capacitor A and annode B (yes I am making those up), it COULD theoretically cause a spark. It's the same reason you aren't allowed to use your cell phone while fueling your car at the gas pump. The chances of either of those scenarios is about a billion to 1, but the problem is that there IS a chance, so they have to make a rule so that it doesn't happen. You can get intrinsically safe equipment, they do exist, they just cost more.

Share this post


Link to post
A camera isn't intrinsically safe, in other words it's not sealed, so if some loose vapor got into the camera, and you turned it on, and when you turned it on there was a tiny spark between capacitor A and annode B (yes I am making those up), it COULD theoretically cause a spark. It's the same reason you aren't allowed to use your cell phone while fueling your car at the gas pump. The chances of either of those scenarios is about a billion to 1, but the problem is that there IS a chance, so they have to make a rule so that it doesn't happen. You can get intrinsically safe equipment, they do exist, they just cost more.
Sealing an electrical device isn't what makes it intrinsically safe.At any rate, there are all kinds of equipment and vehicles moving around on the apron which aren't going to be explosives rated, so quite frankly getting worked up about a camera is nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post

I work at an FBO and fuel both 100LL and JetA and can tell you I would not be here today if both of those compounds were more volatile. Electronics will not ignite either of those fuels. We use GPUs on the same aircraft we are fueling with no problems. We have people that take pictures of their private jets on the ramps. We also have (not surprisingly) running engines and APUs that I'm sure take in lots of airborne fuel given the relatively low flashpoints for the two major types (AvGas (100LL) has a flashpoint of about -30F and JetA has a flashpoint of about 100F). So this idea that electronics can somehow ignite aviation fuel is a complete myth. I'm sure if you started lighting things on fire around the ramp, things would get a bit "explosive". But short of that, I have never had any issues. In regards to the cones, at my company, TACAir, when we get a 737 charter we place cones on the nose/tail, left/right wing, and in front of both engines. Our neighbor FBO, Landmark, does things a bit differently, but I cannot remember at the moment. We also use different cones. We use the ones that look like straws, where as Landmark uses the more stereotypical cone... shaped like a cone.Just some info.

Share this post


Link to post
I did the same once a few years ago while on the tarmac. Took a picture (Qantas 737-800) and some lady in a vest came running up in a angry tone telling me I am not allowed to take photos due to fire risk with the Jet fuel.
The whole thing with cameras and aircraft is a giant myth, perpetuated by things like this (I'm not accusing you, or trying to be offensive, you just didn't know, and I'm just making a point).Some say it's a fire risk, some say it's a security risk, and many private operators mostly say "sure, just don't get the tail number."In all cases, it's false. Even the military's excuse of "you could take time-stamped images that can record how long it took us to get to the end of the runway." I could do the same with a watch, and I'm wearing one, but you don't take objection to that?-The fire risk is absurd.-Security is debatable (taking pictures of the fences, or security infrastructure could mean you were planning something), but if you were obviously getting shots of the plane, you're fine.-The Private N-number issue is also absurd. Why? The FAA dictates that the N-number must be placed a in conspicuous location, or in other words, a location intended to be seen. They're not meant to be private in the least. I could very easily look the number up with or without a camera. The only argument they have is that some operators don't want a record they were in a particular location in the case someone is trying to attack their VIPs.I took 1000+ pictures on the ramp between ACA, IDE, and while working with UAX. I'm still alive, and some of those pictures were right next to, on, in, around the aircraft.People always get in a friz about cameras, and there's nothing wrong with their use in the public environment:
As the flyer states, there are not very many legal restrictions on what can be photographed when in public view. Most attempts at restricting photography are done by lower-level security and law enforcement officials acting way beyond their authority. Note that neither the Patriot Act nor the Homeland Security Act have any provisions that restrict photography. Similarly, some businesses have a history of abusing the rights of photographers under the guise of protecting their trade secrets. These claims are almost always meritless because entities are required to keep trade secrets from public view if they want to protect them.
Source

Share this post


Link to post

I agree. In the big guy's defence (the Mexican), there WAS a sign inside the airport over the walkway out from the gate that said no picture taking. If the issue was pressed, I was gonna act dumb (ask my wife and she says it's not an act). But I got one shot, he told me no, and I put it away, didn't feel like going to Mexican jail because rent a cop wanted to make a name for himself.But anyway, back to the OP, there were cones in the picture, and that's why I posted it.

Share this post


Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...