There's one line that won't be short of drivers...
 

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 07:01:20 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:46:43 on Wed, 9 Dec
2020, " remarked:
What about radiation levels?

One of the case studies I did when at University was the radiation
levels experienced by Concorde crews (because it cruised at 60,000ft),
so it is something they've been taking into account for a very long
time.

Wouldn't some aluminium and various other bits of gubbins between the
pilot and outside at least partly offset radiation? Is the problem mainly
ionising radiation or UV?

There's one line that won't be short of drivers...
 

On 10/12/2020 09:14, wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 17:41:36 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/12/2020 08:27, wrote:
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 22:16:42 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 08/12/2020 20:22, Recliner wrote:
the flight, with at least the take-off hand flown. The hours in the middle
are largely on auto-pilot, with occasional ATC contact.


I know an ex BA pilot who always preferred the European routes rather
than Transatlantic as the former had more real flying and he got to go
home most nights!

Probably considerably healthier too. Sitting down for long periods plus
constant jet lag is very bad for a persons health.


Aeroflot got round that by getting crews to maintain Moscow time
regardless of where they were in the world.

Thats one approach, but the subconcious isn't fooled that easily - if its
dark outside then we tend to get sleepy.


Easier in Soviet days when they weren't allowed to leave the hotel
without special permission and a KGB escort.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

There's one line that won't be short of drivers...
 

On 10/12/2020 09:16, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 07:01:20 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:46:43 on Wed, 9 Dec
2020, " remarked:
What about radiation levels?

One of the case studies I did when at University was the radiation
levels experienced by Concorde crews (because it cruised at 60,000ft),
so it is something they've been taking into account for a very long
time.

Wouldn't some aluminium and various other bits of gubbins between the
pilot and outside at least partly offset radiation? Is the problem mainly
ionising radiation or UV?


Ionising radiation. it also affects the sensors on digital cameras so
Recliner needs to check his for excessive pixel loss. TV crews who do a
lot of flying tend to invest in special cases with a thin lead lining.
Causes havoc at some check-ins.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

There's one line that won't be short of drivers...
 

Recliner wrote:
Sam Wilson wrote:
Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:55:26 on Tue, 8 Dec
2020, remarked:
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 09:21:22 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:29:39 on Tue, 8 Dec
2020, remarked:
Is being a crossrail driver harder or does it pay significantly less than
elsewhere? Thats a genuine question, I have no idea.

One obvious feature (that also applies to HEx, C2C and Island Line) is a
relatively limited amount of route and traction knowledge required.

Thats probably a bonus - less learning.

See harder/easier.

On the other hand, it's going to be pretty boring (like the Victoria
Line or Waterloo and City).

Most of its above ground. But I suspect any driving job gets boring after
a while regardless of the vehicle, even flying a plane.

It's probably more boring flying a commuter plane within a hundred mile
radius of somewhere like Dallas or Atlanta, than being on long haul
transatlantic flights to numerous destinations in Europe and the Far
East.

I think long distance flying is much more boring for the pilots. It's the
take-offs and landings that make the job interesting; cruising is very
boring. And on ultra long haul flights, the four pilots only get a single
take-off or landing in a week-long return trip. That's not even enough to
maintain their proficiency ratings.

There is (or was) a well known meme[1] that describes long distance flying
as 8 hours of absolute boredom with 2 miniutes of panic at either end.

Sam

[1] or whatever we used to call what we now call memes

I think there's up to an hour of interesting or varied work at each end of
the flight, with at least the take-off hand flown. The hours in the middle
are largely on auto-pilot, with occasional ATC contact.

There’s the pre-flight admin stuff but AFAICT once you’re off the ground
and established in climb you’re basically following ATC’s instructions to
get you up to cruising and on route, and following a couple of pretty
relaxed checklists. Getting into a crowded airport can be quite busy, but
again quite a lot of it is just responding to ATC, who have the really
heavy workload. I speak as a keen YouTube watcher, you understand. :-)

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as
Spit the dummy to reply

There's one line that won't be short of drivers...
 

In message , at 09:16:16 on Thu, 10 Dec
2020, remarked:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 07:01:20 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:46:43 on Wed, 9 Dec
2020, " remarked:
What about radiation levels?

One of the case studies I did when at University was the radiation
levels experienced by Concorde crews (because it cruised at 60,000ft),
so it is something they've been taking into account for a very long
time.

Wouldn't some aluminium and various other bits of gubbins between the
pilot and outside

Lead perhaps, not something one often sees structurally on planes.

at least partly offset radiation? Is the problem mainly
ionising radiation or UV?

I don't remember the details, but it was a very serious concern.
--
Roland Perry

There's one line that won't be short of drivers...
 

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 11:53:27 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:16:16 on Thu, 10 Dec
2020, remarked:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 07:01:20 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:46:43 on Wed, 9 Dec
2020, " remarked:
What about radiation levels?

One of the case studies I did when at University was the radiation
levels experienced by Concorde crews (because it cruised at 60,000ft),
so it is something they've been taking into account for a very long
time.

Wouldn't some aluminium and various other bits of gubbins between the
pilot and outside

Lead perhaps, not something one often sees structurally on planes.

I'm not suggesting it would block it completely, but a sheet of aluminium
must be equivalent to quite a few thousand feet of air surely.

There's one line that won't be short of drivers...
 

In message , at 12:08:14 on Thu, 10 Dec
2020, remarked:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 11:53:27 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:16:16 on Thu, 10 Dec
2020, remarked:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 07:01:20 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:46:43 on Wed, 9 Dec
2020, " remarked:
What about radiation levels?

One of the case studies I did when at University was the radiation
levels experienced by Concorde crews (because it cruised at 60,000ft),
so it is something they've been taking into account for a very long
time.

Wouldn't some aluminium and various other bits of gubbins between the
pilot and outside

Lead perhaps, not something one often sees structurally on planes.

I'm not suggesting it would block it completely, but a sheet of aluminium
must be equivalent to quite a few thousand feet of air surely.

Don't call me Shirley.
--
Roland Perry

There's one line that won't be short of drivers...
 

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 09:16:16AM +0000, wrote:

Wouldn't some aluminium and various other bits of gubbins between the
pilot and outside at least partly offset radiation? Is the problem mainly
ionising radiation or UV?

UV *is* ionising radation, although nothing like as good at it as the
higher frequencies are.

--
David Cantrell | Pope | First Church of the Symmetrical Internet

Please stop rolling your Jargon Dice and explain the problem
you are having to me in plain English, using small words.
-- John Hardin, in the Monastery

There's one line that won't be short of drivers...
 

On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 12:04:23 +0000, David Cantrell wrote:

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 09:16:16AM +0000, wrote:

Wouldn't some aluminium and various other bits of gubbins between the
pilot and outside at least partly offset radiation? Is the problem mainly
ionising radiation or UV?

UV *is* ionising radation, although nothing like as good at it as the
higher frequencies are.

I assume UV would all be blocked by the fuselage; would the windscreens not also block some or all of it?

The other ionising radiation will penetrate the windscreens much more easily than the fuselage, meaning the pilots are
at more risk than cabin crew. However, I think cabin crew do more flying hours in a month, so it might balance out.

Presumably the new carbon fibre fuselages provide less protection than the traditional alloy skins?

There's one line that won't be short of drivers...
 

In message , at 14:24:18 on
Sat, 12 Dec 2020, Recliner remarked:

Wouldn't some aluminium and various other bits of gubbins between the
pilot and outside at least partly offset radiation? Is the problem mainly
ionising radiation or UV?

UV *is* ionising radation, although nothing like as good at it as the
higher frequencies are.

I assume UV would all be blocked by the fuselage; would the windscreens not also block some or all of it?

The other ionising radiation will penetrate the windscreens much more easily than the fuselage, meaning the pilots are
at more risk than cabin crew. However, I think cabin crew do more flying hours in a month, so it might balance out.

Presumably the new carbon fibre fuselages provide less protection than the traditional alloy skins?

All of this is routine H&S stuff for at least a generation. I suggest
you don't lose any sleep over it.
--
Roland Perry