Posts Tagged ‘747’

Freeway vs. Highway – Libel vs. Slander – Shotgun vs. Rifle – Accident vs. Collision – Blog vs. Post – Jumbo Jet vs. Regular – Gas vs. Fuel

Monday, August 7th, 2017

We’re in Cali, right? So you know what a freeway is. So don’t call a freeway a “highway.” In California, a highway is any old street. For example:

CVC 21201 (d) A bicycle operated during darkness upon a highway…”

This use of highway in this context means any public street. I guarantee it. (But you can ride your bike on many sections of California freeway – see below.) So you can’t say that Frisco only has two highways (but if you do, people will know you mean freeway through context, I guess.)

What I’m saying is that you use highways to get to a freeway, how’s that?

Libel and slander don’t necessarily mean what you think they mean 100%, sry. Your rule of thumb will keep you out of trouble almost all of the time, but things can get tricky when you get down into the weeds. So yes, you’ve got the dictionary definition right, but there can be exceptions, the same way the duck-billed platypus is an egg-laying species but also a mammal. The solution is defamation and defamatory. 

Let’s try it out. “Dear Sir, your words are defamatory. I shall contact my solicitor to begin an action for defamation.” That works, baby. (Or, you can call yourself an “editor” of an online entity what’s called “Beyond Chron” and then threaten to sue the real Chronicle. Like you’ll say “I’ll consider my options” of suing the real Chronicle for defamation, something like that. And then people will chuckle because they know you’ve already decided not to sue our local paper of record.)

And really, this difference doesn’t really matter. It’s like what’s a fruit and what’s a vegetable. There’s no reason to get into the distinction most of the time.

(But feel free to mock those who confuse these terms, or use the term “liable,” – I won’t take that away from you.



Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference betwixt a shotgun and a rifle, especially from far away. So the term you use is long gun. Easy peasy. I saw the use of this term exactly once in our local Paper of Record, and I thought, wow, that’s how you do it. But then the hed was changed an hour later, presumably because readers were confused. Or maybe the issue had been cleared up by then, IDK.

Another thing is that a rifle can kill you from 500+ yards away and a shotgun can’t.

An accident is something what occurs not on purpose and a collision is when two or more things hit each other, more or less. (And let’s not get into allision.) But you see, they’re not really substitutes for each other. Sometimes collisions are accidental and sometimes accidents involve collisions. Most accidents involving cars are the result of negligence and some are the result of recklessness. Most bike accidents are the result of pilot error, you know, just falling down, but some involve hitting or getting hit by a car and that may or may not be the bicycle rider’s error. You need to look at each case to find fault.

Now if a tennis pro who’s into crystals starts running people over on purpose in the Mission, well, that’s not an accident, but later on you might say that you have a trick knee now due to a traffic accident even though this guy targeted you, that’d be OK. If you have reason to believe that some car crash was committed on purpose, you can say, “That was no accident.” And then it could be attempted homicide or vehicular manslaughter or battery – it could be a lot of things, but not an accident. Anyway, if a collision was the result of negligence or recklessness, then it quite rightly can be called an accident. (And of course, I’m more of a San Francisco bike rider and more of a San Francisco pedestrian, measured any way you would like, by miles, hours, years, decades on these streets of San Francisco, than anybody who harps on you about the difference between accident and collision. Think on that.)

A blog is a weB LOG – it’s the whole enchilada. A single entry into a blog is called a post. I am astounded at the number of people who don’t get this, even after a quick mansplaining. So, the post is the tree and the blog is the forest that the tree is in.

Now one time some lady who got rich off the Chron, through marriage I guess, paid some lawyer to send me a long-winded letter about how I was going to get sued for slander libel, ah defamation, that’s that ticket. Now he was only writing me concerning one post, but his demand was for me to take down my blog, you know, which at that time was made up of thousands and thousands of posts. You see, he was confused. (And then he said I wasn’t allowed to tell anybody about this matter, so of course I posted his letter on my blog the next day. (In poker terms, this is called going over the top.) Good times. And I kept the offending post up, ’cause it was all good. And of course I never got sued IRL. You gotta know how to handle Trump-like individuals, know how to call their bluffs.)

A jumbo jet is a Boeing 747, mostly. You can also throw in the Airbus A380 – now some call it a superjumbo, but you can also call it a jumbo. Both of those aircraft are also widebodies, with twin aisles. And narrowbodies have just one aisle, typically with five or six seats per row. Moving down, you’ve got your regional jets and your corporate jets and then your general aviation jets. That’s it.

Oh, there are some widebodies that aren’t jumbos, like the Boeing 777, that can carry more passengers than a smaller jumbo, like the comical-looking 747SP. Certainly this stubby jet is huge, it’s just so short that it went obsolete pretty quickly. So then along came larger and larger twinjets with only a single deck, but they end up having more capacity than a “jumbo.” Oh well. I didn’t make the rules, I just ‘splain them on my blog.

And if you aren’t sure, never say gas, say fuel. This will keep you out of trouble.

So a military tank might run on gas, but most likely not. The same thing with vessels. And some cars run on diesel of course, Usually, there’s no reason to be specific.

FIN

And here are some of your bikes operating legally on freeway areas, one in San Mateo County and the other in Marin:

7J7C6620-copy

go8f1555-copy

And I Could See the Squirrels, and They were Married

Wednesday, July 26th, 2017

Just arrived, ten bucks.

20170726_075509 copy

Choose wisely.

A storied history.

Say Good-Bye to Boeing 747 Passenger Jet Service Over Frisco – Only 18 Left at SFO – All Gone by Oct 29, 2017

Thursday, June 8th, 2017

The Queen of the Skies above Coyote Point last month:

7J7C1953 copy

United’s old birds flying out of SFO, only 18 left now, are skedded to leave us by the end of October 2017.

Now that’s just the plan, and it depends on United getting enough replacement aircraft. And the cargo version, well those will keep flying until after you’re dead, Gentle Reader, sry. And it’s possible there could be a 747-8 (the unloved replacement for the aging 747-400 seen above) flight in SFO’s future, who knows.

And IDK, Donald Trump’s Air Force One, that’s sort of a 747 – I can’t think of a reason for him to visit, but anything’s possible. And I guess some foreign carriers might still do something with passenger 747’s who knows.

But the fundamental point is that 2017 will mark the End Of An Era, an entire hubsworth of United 747 will disappear, so if you see a four-engined jet near SFO, it’ll be the even larger Airbus A380, (which is, already. becoming a kind of flying dinosaur itself oh well. You see, they made the wings too big, to facilitate the inevitable stretched cabin that was supposed to come in the future, but whoops, no stretch is coming after all. So all these A380 airplanes you see have too much wing for no good reason. Plus the wings are too short, owing to the sort of arbitrary limit of an 80 meter wingspan, which was necessary to limit the amount of re engineering required to get them to fit into airports. And Airbus could have opted for Boeing-style folding wingtips, but no, they didn’t, oh well.)

No fatalities in the long history of 747 jumbos at SFO but there was United 863, which almost plowed into Mount San Bruno in 1998 and also Pan Am 845 – check the YouTube –  video footage starts about halfway through:

I’ll tell you, I wouldn’t have jumped from the front part of a jumbo jet with its tail on the ground, but you have flight crew yelling at you to go go go, so off you go.

Anyway, adieu, 747.

Recalling (Again) the Close Call United Flight 863 had with Mount San Bruno Back in 1998

Thursday, December 8th, 2016

Here’s an excellent report from the WSJ back in 1999.

And here’s a more better photo than I had in back in aught-nine:

7j7c0758-copy

Same mountain, same antennas, same general direction for the plane (except the 1998 incident occurred at night and with fog/clouds).

Anyway, United Airlines took things seriously and aviation is the better for it…

Licensed to Ill, United 747-400, Fleet Week 2016

Wednesday, October 12th, 2016

7j7c2685-copy

The End of an Era: 2014 is the Last Time Any Airline Will Boast of Its Boeing 747 Jumbo Jets – Air China’s 747-8

Wednesday, November 26th, 2014

I was surprised to see this ad:

Air_China copy

Here’s how things looked back in 1968:

747 copy

And here’s how things looked back in 2008 for Boeing’s jumbo jet competition, the Airbus A380.

Where’s our jumbo jet scorecard?

Boeing 747 1st Generation = SUCCESS! Unquestionably, but now obsolete

Boeing 747 2nd Generation = SUCCESS! Unquestionably, but pretty much obsolete

Airbus A380 1st Generation = FAILURE! Pretty much. A big money pit for Airbus

Boeing 747 3rd Generation = FAILURE! Approaching obsolescence faster than expected 

See a pattern here?

It’s Finally Happening: Emirates Airlines Launches Daily Airbus A380 Superjumbo Service Between SFO and Dubai December 1st

Tuesday, November 11th, 2014

Well I just saw a banner ad, so consider that confirmation that, as of December 1st, 2014*, Emirates is finally offering daily flights to and from Dubai out of SFO on its shower-stall equipped** Airbus A380 double-decker superjumbos.

So, chalk that up as a victory for SFO.

Here’s your Emirates A380, equipped with a horseshoe bar in the back, upstairs, for Business and First Class passengers only:

img_0322-copy

It was back in 2008 that Emirates brought a then-new A380 to town, to show it off. Get all the deets on that visit right here.

But, IRL, they ended up using the smaller Boeing 777-300ER twinjet instead. When asked, the Emirates people said they were “considering” the A380 for daily flights to and from SFO. Well, six years later, the day has come.

Oh, here’s my take on SFO + A380 readiness right here. IMO, the A380 was, is, and will continue to be Just Another Airplane. Sorry.

Oh well.

*The writer is saying that the new, longer-range A380’s are lighter?  Uh, I think he should have said heavier instead. More fuel = more range, right? That’s the case here. It’s still a very heavy aircraft, one that’s still heavier than designed…

**What happens to your used shower water after your five-minute-max spritz is over? Emirates wanted to dump it out in-flight but I don’t think they got permission to do that. So, there’s a holding tank that gets emptied out after landing. So, Emirates needs to burn more fuel to carry a useless load of soapy water waste water. Not too “green,” huh? Oh well.

Checking In on a Typical Mayor Gavin Newsom Press Conference a Half-Decade Later: Who Lost Qantas?

Tuesday, July 8th, 2014

Well, nobody really “lost” QANTAS, but SFO used to have the big Australian carrier like for a half-century and now it doesn’t so that’s what SFGov was upset about back in the day. Let’s review.

Here’s 2009, from Qantas:

“In 1954, San Francisco became Qantas’ first US mainland destination and we have a long association with the city. We are delighted to showcase our new aircraft to the people of San Francisco.”

And here’s 2009, from Newsom:

“San Francisco International Airport was designed to accommodate the new A380 aircraft, and we are extremely pleased today to welcome Qantas Airways in the first commercial A380 flight to SFO,” said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. “This state-of-the-art, environmentally sensitive new aircraft provides yet another bridge of friendship between San Francisco and Australia, and we look forward to continuing our long and successful partnership with Qantas.”

Now IRL, the Airbus A380 was and is just another airplane in the sky. And IRL, the state of the art of large commercial aircraft would be to use two large engines instead of the A380’s four smaller engines. And calling it “environmentally sensitive” was and is a bit of a stretch and, in fact, these days it’s considered a guzzler and so much so that Airbus is considering certifying completely different engines.

Anyway, what happened soon after this press conference in 2009 is that Qantas shut down operations at SFO and went to Texas. So instead of upgrading airplanes coming into town, they just upped and quit on us, they couldn’t wait to get out of here.

Why? Because it made sense for them to do so and also the airport people at Dallas Fort Worth came up with millions of dollars to throw at Qantas.

Who knows, Qantas might come back to SFO at some point (but it doesn’t really matter all that much).

Pretty much everything he said at his press conferences turned out to be wrong – this is just an example.

And This Week’s #1 San Francisco-Related YouTube Video is All About “Chemtrails” from an Asiana 747

Thursday, February 20th, 2014

Of course the scientific term for chemtrails is contrails, or vapor trails if you prefer.

But if you’re tired of controlled demolition, Building 7, and the JFK conspiracy, then chemtrails might be for you!

Chemtrail sprayer closeup over San Francisco, 2-16-14

(Nice camera, dude – a Canon Powershot SX50 at 1200mm equivalent.)

Mountain View View, Sometimes – The Boeing 747-200 What They Call Air Force One Right Next to the 101 Freeway

Friday, October 25th, 2013

What you can see from the freeway, sometimes:

Click to expand

And then you’ll see the support aircraft at and around SFO, in the next county up the 101.