[JenBurdoo] Flying High

An archive of solved lateral thinking puzzles.

Moderators: peter365, Balin, kalira, JenBurdoo, Tiger

[JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby JenBurdoo » Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:51 pm

An aviation company was once saved from bankruptcy ... by its rival. How?
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby Doriana » Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:02 pm

Its rival = another aviation company?

Did the rival save the company on purpose? accidentally? as a "side effect" of something else they did?

Was the rival planning to buy up the company?
Doriana
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:12 pm
Location: Göttingen, Germany

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby WiZ » Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:20 pm

Did the rival company benefit from saving company A? Did the rival company suffer a loss of business/income themselves? Did the rival company inadvertently end up giving company A more business? Did the rivals manage to put company A to some use?
User avatar
WiZ
 
Posts: 1479
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 8:19 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby RedWine » Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:44 pm

Was the company saved from bankruptcy by being given the money? By getting more customers? By obtaining a big contract? By getting a compensation? By getting their investment refunded?
RedWine
 
Posts: 4181
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 7:55 am
Location: Poland

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby Grip » Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:33 pm

Is Howard Hughes relevant?
Grip
 
Posts: 2356
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby JenBurdoo » Wed Jan 25, 2017 3:47 am

Its rival = another aviation company? Yes.

Did the rival save the company on purpose? accidentally? This. as a "side effect" of something else they did? And this.

Was the rival planning to buy up the company? No.

Did the rival company benefit from saving company A? No. Did the rival company suffer a loss of business/income themselves? Irr. Did the rival company inadvertently end up giving company A more business? Yes. Did the rivals manage to put company A to some use? No.

Was the company saved from bankruptcy by being given the money? By getting more customers? This. By obtaining a big contract? By getting a compensation? By getting their investment refunded? None of the others.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby RedWine » Wed Jan 25, 2017 8:37 am

Did both companies work in the same field of aviation (as: civil opposed to military, passengers opposed to cargo etc).
Did the saving company want more customers for themselves? Did they run a relevant advertising company? A relevant loyalty program?
RedWine
 
Posts: 4181
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 7:55 am
Location: Poland

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby Doriana » Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:24 am

Just to clarify, does "aviation company" refer to a company that produces aircrafts?

Expanding on RedWine's idea of an advertising campaign, did the campaign (if there was one) unintentionally suggest that the other company's products were superior?
Doriana
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:12 pm
Location: Göttingen, Germany

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby JenBurdoo » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:39 am

Did both companies work in the same field of aviation (as: civil opposed to military, passengers opposed to cargo etc). Yes.
Did the saving company want more customers for themselves? Yes. Did they run a relevant advertising company? No. A relevant loyalty program? No.

Just to clarify, does "aviation company" refer to a company that produces aircrafts? Yes.

Expanding on RedWine's idea of an advertising campaign, did the campaign (if there was one) unintentionally suggest that the other company's products were superior? No.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby RedWine » Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:54 pm

Did either of the companies enter the new field of business? Did both companies produce whole aircrafts (as opposed to one producing aircraft engines and the other one aircraft armchairs)?
RedWine
 
Posts: 4181
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 7:55 am
Location: Poland

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby JenBurdoo » Wed Jan 25, 2017 4:21 pm

Is Howard Hughes relevant? No.

Did either of the companies enter the new field of business? No. Did both companies produce whole aircrafts (as opposed to one producing aircraft engines and the other one aircraft armchairs)? They both produce whole aircraft.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby RedWine » Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:48 pm

Do both companies produce aircrafts of similar features? Of similar use?
RedWine
 
Posts: 4181
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 7:55 am
Location: Poland

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby JenBurdoo » Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:22 pm

Do both companies produce aircrafts of similar features? Of similar use? Yes to both.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby RedWine » Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:30 pm

Did any of the companies make a relevant research? Development? Invention?
Did the saving company also get more customers? Did they increase the overall demand on aircrafts?
RedWine
 
Posts: 4181
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 7:55 am
Location: Poland

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby JenBurdoo » Fri Jan 27, 2017 3:40 am

Did any of the companies make a relevant research? Development? This. Invention?
Did the saving company also get more customers? Yes. Did they increase the overall demand on aircrafts? No.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby RedWine » Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:11 am

Did the saving company make the development? Did the saved company make the development? Did the development enable making aircrafts cheaper? safer? bigger? using less fuel?
RedWine
 
Posts: 4181
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 7:55 am
Location: Poland

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby GalFisk » Fri Jan 27, 2017 3:53 pm

Relevant why the company was in danger of going bankrupt in the first place? If so: competition? Mismanagement? Failing demand for aircraft? Accidents/reliability issues?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 6971
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby JenBurdoo » Fri Jan 27, 2017 7:34 pm

Hm, edit:

Did the saving company make the development? Did the saved company make the development? Both. Did the development enable making aircrafts cheaper? safer? This. bigger? using less fuel?

Relevant why the company was in danger of going bankrupt in the first place? Yes. If so: competition? Mismanagement? Arguably this. Failing demand for aircraft? Also arguable, or maybe Yope. Accidents/reliability issues?
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby GalFisk » Sat Jan 28, 2017 6:34 pm

Mismanagement: bad marketing? Poor salespeople work? Advertising issues? Contract issues? Poor customer satisfaction? Mismanaged customer relations? Failure to respond to competition? Misleading sales promises? Corruption? Overspending? Laziness? Not following laws and regulations?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 6971
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby JenBurdoo » Sat Jan 28, 2017 8:16 pm

Mismanagement: bad marketing? Poor salespeople work? Advertising issues? Contract issues? Poor customer satisfaction? Mismanaged customer relations? Failure to respond to competition? Misleading sales promises? Corruption? Overspending? Laziness? Not following laws and regulations? None of these, except perhaps to a small extent bad marketing; also see "failing demand for aircraft" above.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby Grip » Sun Jan 29, 2017 6:34 pm

Hello, fellow Floridian! :)

Did the development involve a new safety feature/device? or was it more that something already existing was made safer?

Did this occur within the past 20 years? relevant when it occurred?

Is piloting the aircraft relevant?

Both companies make the same type of aircraft - civilian craft? large jet airliners? military craft? bombers?
Grip
 
Posts: 2356
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby JenBurdoo » Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:00 am

Hello, fellow Floridian! :) Hi to you too. (waves)

Did the development involve a new safety feature/device? An improvement - safety is relevant, but YMMV as to whether it's a feature. or was it more that something already existing was made safer? It was already.

Did this occur within the past 20 years? No. relevant when it occurred? Mildly - '70s to '80s.

Is piloting the aircraft relevant? Yes.

Both companies make the same type of aircraft - civilian craft? This. large jet airliners? And this. military craft? bombers?
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby Grip » Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:31 am

Are cockpit windows relevant? the controls? did this have to do with blind spots while piloting?
Grip
 
Posts: 2356
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby JenBurdoo » Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:47 am

Are cockpit windows relevant? the controls? did this have to do with blind spots while piloting? None of these.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby Grip » Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:27 am

Black box relevant?
Grip
 
Posts: 2356
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby RedWine » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:36 am

Was the saved company in danger of bankruptcy because they: lost a contract? Did not get a contract? Used resources that were overly expensive? Lost employees?
RedWine
 
Posts: 4181
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 7:55 am
Location: Poland

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby JenBurdoo » Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:27 pm

Black box relevant? No.

Was the saved company in danger of bankruptcy because they: lost a contract? Did not get a contract? This is closest. Used resources that were overly expensive? Lost employees?
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby RedWine » Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:14 am

Did the two companies compete over a contract? Did any of the two companies have a relevant strategic partner or customer? Did the safety development concern communication? features of passengers' places? features of cockpit? fuel? flight procedures? luggage?
RedWine
 
Posts: 4181
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 7:55 am
Location: Poland

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby JenBurdoo » Tue Jan 31, 2017 5:26 pm

Did the two companies compete over a contract? Not at the time. Did any of the two companies have a relevant strategic partner or customer? No. Did the safety development concern communication? features of passengers' places? features of cockpit? fuel? flight procedures? luggage? None of these, though the cockpit, fuel and flight procedures are mildly related to the development.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby JenBurdoo » Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:26 pm

For ease of naming, the companies are Boeing and Airbus.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby RedWine » Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:22 pm

Does the development concern the construction of the aircraft? The equipment inside? The software it uses? Did the company who make the development share it with the other one? Do both companies use the development?
Is Boeing the saved company? Is Airbus?
RedWine
 
Posts: 4181
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 7:55 am
Location: Poland

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High

Postby JenBurdoo » Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:50 pm

Does the development concern the construction of the aircraft? Yope. The equipment inside? This, but also something outside. The software it uses? Is related to the new internal equipment. Did the company who make the development share it with the other one? No. Do both companies use the development? Yes.
Is Boeing the saved company? Is Airbus? This.

There is a lurking FA here, btw...
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby JenBurdoo » Mon Feb 13, 2017 6:28 pm

Recap:

Airbus was on the verge of going bankrupt when an action by its rival, Boeing, inadvertently saved it and led to its renaissance as a business and, indeed, ascendance over Boeing. This was due to a pair of new technologies that both companies had developed. One of these developments is related to cockpit features, and the other improves the safety of aircraft.

The two businesses independently developed the same technologies; they were not fundamentally different, nor was either superior to the other. Yet Boeing carried out an action that gave Airbus a business advantage. How?

Hint: The action was intended to improve Boeing's own business potential and decrease that of Airbus. Instead it was the other way around. What happened?
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby GalFisk » Mon Feb 13, 2017 6:33 pm

Did something go wrong with Boeing's action? Was it misinterpreted? Was there a crash? Was the action marketing-related?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 6971
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby Grip » Mon Feb 13, 2017 7:50 pm

Did Boeing obtain a government or some other contract? but the contract didn't work out and Boeing lost huge sums of money?
Grip
 
Posts: 2356
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby JenBurdoo » Mon Feb 13, 2017 7:59 pm

Did something go wrong with Boeing's action? No, but... Was it misinterpreted? No. Was there a crash? No. Was the action marketing-related? Tangentially.
Did Boeing obtain a government or some other contract? No. but the contract didn't work out and Boeing lost huge sums of money? No.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby RedWine » Tue Feb 14, 2017 9:35 am

Did Boeing want to decrease the cost of their production? Increase the amount of their production? Convince someone that their product is better than the one of Airbus? Did their action pertain to quality of the aircraft?
RedWine
 
Posts: 4181
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 7:55 am
Location: Poland

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby GalFisk » Tue Feb 14, 2017 3:30 pm

Did Airbus do something specific in order to profit from Boeing's actions? Did they parody something Boeing did? Build on it? Repeat it?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 6971
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby JenBurdoo » Wed Feb 15, 2017 1:23 pm

Did Boeing want to decrease the cost of their production? No. Increase the amount of their production? Yes. Convince someone that their product is better than the one of Airbus? This would have been a side effect. Did their action pertain to quality of the aircraft? No.

Did Airbus do something specific in order to profit from Boeing's actions? Yope. Did they parody something Boeing did? Build on it? Repeat it? No to all.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby GalFisk » Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:40 pm

Did Boeing's actions target Airbus specifically? All competitors? Not target competitors? Did their actions pertain to the cost of buying aircraft? Flying aircraft? Maintaining aircraft? Some other cost? Not cost?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 6971
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby JenBurdoo » Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:36 pm

Did Boeing's actions target Airbus specifically? All competitors? Not target competitors? This. Did their actions pertain to the cost of buying aircraft? Flying aircraft? Maintaining aircraft? Some other cost? Not cost? This.

Good questions.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby GalFisk » Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:42 pm

Did their actions pertain to aircraft: performance? Reliability? Capacity? Durability? Flight characteristics? Automation of flight? Technological refinement? Not to aircraft?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 6971
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby RedWine » Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:06 pm

Did Boeing actions affect the company's workers? Did the actions result in some changes in the law?
RedWine
 
Posts: 4181
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 7:55 am
Location: Poland

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby JenBurdoo » Sat Feb 18, 2017 3:24 pm

Did their actions pertain to aircraft: performance? Reliability? Capacity? Durability? Flight characteristics? Automation of flight? Technological refinement? Not to aircraft? This, though reliability, performance and automation of aircraft are tangentially relevant.

Did Boeing actions affect the company's workers? Did the actions result in some changes in the law? THIS.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby RedWine » Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:40 pm

Was Boeing's improvement so important that it became mandatory to all aircraft companies which meant that Boeing lost the advantage they'd got by implementing the development?
RedWine
 
Posts: 4181
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 7:55 am
Location: Poland

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby GalFisk » Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:08 pm

Manufacturing processes relevant? Did their actions pertain to a specific aircraft part or system? Is the black box relevant? Cockpit voice recorder?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 6971
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby JenBurdoo » Tue Feb 21, 2017 3:36 pm

Important: Boeing made two particular changes, not just one.
1. It pushed through a change in the law.
2. It made several technical improvements to its aircraft.


Was Boeing's improvement so important that it became mandatory to all aircraft companies which meant that Boeing lost the advantage they'd got by implementing the development? It's not mandatory by law, but if you want to sell your planes to certain airlines you kinda need the technical advantage.

Manufacturing processes relevant? No. Did their actions pertain to a specific aircraft part or system? Very much so; as noted previously, the engines and controls. Is the black box relevant? Cockpit voice recorder? Not these.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby GalFisk » Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:35 pm

Is a specific engine component relevant? An engine safety feature? Such as keeping a damaged turbine from ejecting its blades through the side of the engine? Specific materials relevant? Alloys? Is the improvement only relevant to turbine engines?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 6971
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby JenBurdoo » Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:51 pm

Is a specific engine component relevant? No. An engine safety feature? No. Such as keeping a damaged turbine from ejecting its blades through the side of the engine? Specific materials relevant? No. Alloys? Is the improvement only relevant to turbine engines? Any multi-engine jet will do - prop planes aren't covered. Assume that engines are, in general, more efficient and powerful than before, and this is the primary relevant improvement.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby Hobbsicle » Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:46 pm

So did Boeing help get a law passed in the US? Or a change to an existing law? Did it raise restrictions? Lower restrictions? Did the law pertain to the new upgrades? Would the law be applied to manufacturers? Purchasers of the aircraft?
Would Airbus have been exempt from that law? Or perhaps were already following it, thus clearing some of the playing field, and allowing them to continue selling while other competitors caught up?
Hobbsicle
 
Posts: 575
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2014 11:42 am
Location: Texas, United States

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby Grip » Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Had Airbus beforehand had very inefficient or weak engines in their craft?
Grip
 
Posts: 2356
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby JenBurdoo » Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:11 pm

So did Boeing help get a law passed in the US? Or a change to an existing law? More this, but a mix. Did it raise restrictions? Lower restrictions? This. Did the law pertain to the new upgrades? Yes. Would the law be applied to manufacturers? Purchasers of the aircraft? This.
Would Airbus have been exempt from that law? Or perhaps were already following it, thus clearing some of the playing field, and allowing them to continue selling while other competitors caught up? This. You've worked out what made Airbus successful again. Now what was the law?

Had Airbus beforehand had very inefficient or weak engines in their craft? No.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby biograd » Thu Mar 09, 2017 3:43 pm

So the law removed a restriction? Would "catching up" with the change in law mean making an improvement in aircraft capability that would have been disallowed or financially disadvantageous with the restriction in place? If so, did this restriction involve airspeed? altitude? flight distance? quantity of onboard fuel?
biograd
 
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby Grip » Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:34 pm

Were the lower restrictions broad based? or very specific?
Grip
 
Posts: 2356
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:47 am
Location: Central Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby JenBurdoo » Fri Mar 10, 2017 11:33 pm

So the law removed a restriction? It reduced it sharply. Would "catching up" with the change in law mean making an improvement in aircraft capability that would have been disallowed or financially disadvantageous with the restriction in place? Correct. If so, did this restriction involve airspeed? altitude? flight distance? These last three are all related to the restriction in question. quantity of onboard fuel? Less important.

Were the lower restrictions broad based? or very specific? They involve a very specific capability of aircraft, and can vary considerably based on several criteria.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby GalFisk » Sat Mar 11, 2017 9:23 am

Is fuel economy relevant to the restriction? Noise? Climb rate? Maximum altitude? Is air traffic control relevant?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 6971
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby JenBurdoo » Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:32 am

Is fuel economy relevant to the restriction? Noise? Climb rate? Maximum altitude? None of these. Is air traffic control relevant? Mildly.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby Hobbsicle » Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:29 pm

Did the regulation relate to pollution/emissions?

Did it relate to autopilot? Other automatic or computer-controlled systems? That weren't allowed because of the safety concern of not being directly controlled?
Hobbsicle
 
Posts: 575
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2014 11:42 am
Location: Texas, United States

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby JenBurdoo » Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:44 am

Did the regulation relate to pollution/emissions? No.

Did it relate to autopilot? Other automatic or computer-controlled systems? That weren't allowed because of the safety concern of not being directly controlled? No to all. Under the specific circumstances covered by the regulations, autopilots would likely be disabled.

However, safety concerns are quite relevant!
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby GalFisk » Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:37 pm

Emergencies relevant? Emergency landing? Go-around? Crosswind landings? Specific weather? Such as fog? High winds? Thunderstorms?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 6971
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby JenBurdoo » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:30 pm

Emergencies relevant? Yes. Emergency landing? This, none of the others. Go-around? Crosswind landings? Specific weather? Such as fog? High winds? Thunderstorms?
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby GalFisk » Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:37 am

Emergency landing: anywhere? In water? At an airfield? Evacuation relevant? Evacuation slides? Landing gear? Dumping remaining fuel? Landing without engine power? Without hydraulics? Backup/independent hydraulic systems relevant?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 6971
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby JenBurdoo » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:11 pm

Emergency landing: anywhere? In water? At an airfield? This. Evacuation relevant? Evacuation slides? Landing gear? Dumping remaining fuel? Landing without engine power? Yope. Without hydraulics? Backup/independent hydraulic systems relevant? Nothing else relevant.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby GalFisk » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:32 pm

Landing with one engine out? One engine remaining? Did the regulation say a plane should be able to fly and land safely with a certain number of engines out? And Airbus planes were already capable of this?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 6971
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [JenBurdoo] Flying High (now with recap and hint!)

Postby JenBurdoo » Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:03 am

Landing with one engine out? Yes. One engine remaining? Yes. Did the regulation say a plane should be able to fly and land safely with a certain number of engines out? And Airbus planes were already capable of this? Got it.


Spoiler:


ETOPS is short for Extended Operations, sometimes facetiously acronymized as "Engines Turn or Passengers Swim." It is a series of regulations about passenger jet reliability, that in various times and locations has regarded how many engines a plane is assumed to need to make it to safety in the event of one being lost. For example, if it were assumed that only two-engined aircraft would fly for two hours without mishap, only three-engined and four-engined planes could be permitted to travel four-hour flights without emergency sites in between (such as a flight over empty ocean), as if one engine went out the plane could still make it to safety. While twin-engined planes might also fly these routes, they would be further restricted because they might be required to make safety on only one engine in sixty minutes. (You can cross the Atlantic direct from New York to Paris in a straight line - or you can take a longer but safer route up the Canadian coast and over Greenland, Iceland and Britain).

With the advent of the long-ranged twin-engined 757 and 767, Boeing sought lower restrictions to this rule so that their jets could be sold to transoceanic customers. They didn't realize that the Airbus 300 was already capable of this, but because of FAA restrictions hadn't had sales to anyone but short-range airlines and overland routes. Airbus's possession of an already clearly reliable aircraft enabled it to capture better routes and customers before Boeing could take advantage of the less restrictive rules.
JenBurdoo
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Florida, USA


Return to Solved Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
cron