Podcast: Play in new window | Download (66.4MB)
Even down here in Australia we’re being impacted by the out-of-control antics of the TSA, so what the heck, we’ll have a bit of a c’est la vent moment about it. We also have our usual opinionated discussion on some other news items and chat with Shashank Nigam from SimpliFlying.
Here’s how the show proceeds:
- Prosecutors want Garuda pilot back in jail (ABC News)
- Farmer’s flight path message for charity (ABC News)
- The first aircraft taken to Antarctica has been found again:
- David Vanderhoof gives us an Aviation History segment
- Air NZ’s new cabin crew outfits like ‘drag queens’ (Greer McDonald & Kiran Chug @ Sydney Morning Herald)
- Phrase “elephant in the room” is most popular cliche of 2009 (The Mirror) (AirNZ’s use of the phrase “disestablished”)
- Tiger Airways carries 3 millionth passenger (Travel Daily News)
- Tiger’s flight delayed 10-hours (The Morning Bulletin)
- Tiger Airways advances aircraft delivery (Yahoo! Singapore)
- Discussion about Tiger’s callsign on our forum @ Downwind
- Jetstar and AirAsia form a Joint Venture:
- Australian executives at Jetstar Pacific not allowed to leave Vietnam:
- QANTAS are impacted by another Amadeus crash:
- We chat with Shashank Nigam from SimpliFlying
- We have a c’est la vie moment about the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
- Technical glitch strands Qantas passengers (ABC News)
- Listener Mail:
- Jack Seymour’s got a blog up about his learning to fly (Student Flight
- Mark mentions Coronal Mass Ejections and their potential impacts on GPS systems
- Shout Outs:
- The new Mile High Flyers podcast is well worth listening to (and they refer to our show in their second episode – w00t :)
- Will & Dave at The Pilot’s Flight Podlog podcast have provided us with a promo piece and are joining in the fun of cross-promoting other podcasts
As usual, our theme music track is “YouNameIt5” by Brian Simpson (aka t3cat5) and our sound effects come from SoundSnap.com.
Haha, I don’t like those Uniforms either!
thanks for the plug, haha now ill have to update the site.
A plea for all jurno’s to actually spend 2 minutes checking the details please… QF11 is SYD-LAX not Melbourne, that’s QF93!
Herald Sun had a nice gaff in yesterday with the Jelena incident HBA-MEL, quoted as QF437 (which is actually a SYD-MEL service!). But we’ll save the contents of that article for Ep24!
Ben, with all due respect…..who cares!! Considering pilots don’t know their own callsigns, how can reporters be expected too!!!!
Hey, I’m going to defend Air NZ here. I thought we were a step above the regular press (media) being enthusists rather than headline grabbers. Air NZ as far as I can tell have put up options for their staff and what is in demand will be what is produced for them. let’s see what they actually end up with rather than puking at what might be.
Also, how about that Dave Vanderhoof. He’s apparently taking Steve’s lead and getting really schmick with his production techniques and sound affects. Nice to see… er, hear :-)
As usual gents, nice job this week and good to see you back working the pod than slacking about wallowing in the Mexican heat – Yikes!
Ben & Jeremy: Oh wow, it’s ATC vs ATC – this should be interesting indeed:)
Mike: I’m all for AirNZ and am the first to say how good they are, but definitely nobody’s perfect. As I said during the show, I’m holding off on my official verdict until I can see the whole range. The articles so far haven’t shown many items yet so I’m holding out hope. Fingers crossed that you’re right and that crappy pink number is an option :)
As to Mexican heat? Where’d it go? Weather down here has been alternating warm & blue skies with fluffy white clouds then huge grey ugly clouds with massive downpours. Come back 35C – 40C, please – I kinda liked it…
Nice episode, guys.
In terms of airport security, should we in fact be going more towards the American model here? Should we replace the private security guards that they use for outwards screening with a dedicated air security/law enforcement organisation?
To use my 09 trip to LAX for instance, why are we going to the lowest common denominator security guard to basically be the first line of defence for the US? Going the other way, they have Customs & AQIS to check us on the way in. So why not on the way out like the US did to me on the way out?
On my way home at LAX, I was checked by the TSA guys at the screening point and then several hours later on the aerobridge by CBP. Doesn’t the CBP trust the TSA? Why not have the TSA and CBP under the same umbrella? Why have two bodies to do the same thing?
And I will work on some promos for you guys when I don’t sound tired!
Interesting point, and I agree that this country’s obsession with out-sourcing of government functions is crazy at times.
Here’s an odd one in the US though. Last year when I went to the US to stay with my ex-USAF friends, I was checked by the TSA & CBP coming in, and going out, but when we visited an Air Force Base at one point, the guard posts were all manned by private security. Armed to the teeth, mind you, but these posts were previously manned by USAF MPs.
Makes you wonder sometimes…but as Grant pointed out, the TSA is little more than “security theatre”.
I hear you, Steve! Last year there was an uproar about exactly what you were describing on the USAF Base but here in Sydney. Often the front line of defence at an Australian Defence establishment is an unarmed private security guard wearing a super vest.
The TSA and much of the “security” at airports around the world is “theatre” – it’s all show. None of the current crap we have to go through would have stopped the 9-11 terrorists.
These new “body imager” systems may not be sufficient to spot the funky underwear bomb and certainly won’t detect a dedicated idiot with the bomb materials already inside them.
If the TSA did a serious assessment of past terrorist methods and an impact analysis of potential ways of causing problems, no-one in the USA would be able to rent a truck.
A real “5 Why’s” analysis of the underwear bomber incident would produce some great results. This is where you ask “But Why?” 5 times to determine the root cause of a situation (eg: he was able to trigger the bomb because he got on the plane because they didn’t think to single him out for examination because their system missed the fact that he was travelling without luggage on a ticket paid for with cash etc etc etc)
Too much like real thinking and too likely to raise some very nasty internal issues for most governments. Also doesn’t look as good as knee-jerk reactions that allow politicians to say “Look, we’re doing stuff to protect you, aren’t we great?”
What, me, jaded? Cynical? *sigh* :)
You know, I’ve never heard it said as “B-O-A-C”, only as “BOAC”.
And just remembered a once-upon-a-time Australian aviation podcast, Geoff from Sydney’s “Pilot Training Podcast”. Still available at http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podcasts/7012
Thanks for the link to Geoff’s podcast. I’ll have to download them and check them out. As to B-O-A-C vs BOAC – wow, I’m starting to wonder what cave I grew up in to have such a different perspective on it? I have memories of people around me saying B-O-A-C when I was growing up, plus I’m sure a documentary record I had on aircraft & airlines from the UK said B-O-A-C (it was pretty old :)
Great internet site! I thoroughly enjoyed your content â€¦very nicely written.