Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

airships.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 223 posts

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#181

Post by RugnirViking »

Sebguer wrote: post #36
-warren wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Story time. Last summer I flew from ATL to SFO on a brand new Airbus. Pretty cool plane! Halfway across the count I had the obligatory restroom break. In the head, I noticed an ashtray. I was confused -- "smoking has been banned in planes doe decades. Why is there an ashtray here?" I flagged down a flight attendant and asked them. Their answer was that yes smoking is banned, and it's a $250 fine. But EVERY SINGLE TRI…

It's actually mandated by the FAA that an ashtray be present in the restrooms: > (g) Regardless of whether smoking is allowed in any other part of the airplane, lavatories must have self-contained, removable ashtrays located conspicuously on or near the entry side of each lavatory door, except that one ashtray may serve more than one lavatory door if the ashtray can be seen readily from the cabin side of each lavator…

what makes an inoperable ashtray? full? holes in the bottom?

I suppose the idea makes sense but the wording is amusing - I think of ashtrays as a static object, I can't imagine myself "operating" an ashtray

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#182

Post by dyauspitr »

nextaccountic wrote: post #76
b65e8bee43c2ed0 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

on the contrary, I strongly believe that tobacco companies are the driving force behind the attempts to equate vaping and smoking. idk about the current year, but tobacco companies had little to no influence over the vaping market during its early years. the hardware was 5% American from small companies and 95% Chinese, the nicotine fluid had local producers everywhere because of how cheap and easy it is to make. alm…

Vaping has its share of mystery chemicals too, though

Flavorless VG is pretty much mystery free. At that point you only need to worry about what’s coming off the actual coils.

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#183

Post by pbronez »

This is a really lovely website. I had no idea that stamp collectors were a critical market for airships!

> The polar journey, like other zeppelin flights, was largely financed by stamp collectors; Graf Zeppelin carried approximately 50,000 letters sent by philatelists, and made a water-landing to exchange mail with the Soviet icebreaker Malygin, which itself carried a large quantity of mail sent by stamp collectors.

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#184

Post by r3trohack3r »

RugnirViking wrote: post #181
Sebguer wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually mandated by the FAA that an ashtray be present in the restrooms: > (g) Regardless of whether smoking is allowed in any other part of the airplane, lavatories must have self-contained, removable ashtrays located conspicuously on or near the entry side of each lavatory door, except that one ashtray may serve more than one lavatory door if the ashtray can be seen readily from the cabin side of each lavator…

what makes an inoperable ashtray? full? holes in the bottom? I suppose the idea makes sense but the wording is amusing - I think of ashtrays as a static object, I can't imagine myself "operating" an ashtray

They are typically a V shaped receptacle that is flush with the wall and flips out.

The hinge jamming or becoming detached would make it inoperable.

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#185

Post by gwbas1c »

devilbunny wrote: post #125
gwbas1c wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lost count of the number of people who I've had to explain that, on long trips, you don't "stop to charge." You charge where you stop to poop.

I don’t dislike electric cars, but I don’t poop every 3 hours, and it doesn’t take 30 minutes to do so. When EVs can reliably (including charging infrastructure) do charging as fast as ICE refuels, with 300 miles/500 km between 20-80%, they will win with most people in the US and Canada. Otherwise, we just drive too far, too often. It’s not far off. But until then, it’s not truly a replacement for ICE. Yes, I really…

Well, you clearly have no sense of humor. In all seriousness, all you need to do is take bathroom breaks at chargers. That's all it takes, and you can't hold it for 300 miles.

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#186

Post by -warren »

Sebguer wrote: post #36
-warren wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Story time. Last summer I flew from ATL to SFO on a brand new Airbus. Pretty cool plane! Halfway across the count I had the obligatory restroom break. In the head, I noticed an ashtray. I was confused -- "smoking has been banned in planes doe decades. Why is there an ashtray here?" I flagged down a flight attendant and asked them. Their answer was that yes smoking is banned, and it's a $250 fine. But EVERY SINGLE TRI…

It's actually mandated by the FAA that an ashtray be present in the restrooms: > (g) Regardless of whether smoking is allowed in any other part of the airplane, lavatories must have self-contained, removable ashtrays located conspicuously on or near the entry side of each lavatory door, except that one ashtray may serve more than one lavatory door if the ashtray can be seen readily from the cabin side of each lavator…

Ok now thats wild!

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#187

Post by xethos »

WalterBright wrote: post #148
xethos wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> took a loooong time for Boeing to convince the FAA that a twin engine jet was safer than a 4 engine for ocean crossings I don't believe they convinced the FAA twin is safer , just that it meets the necessary safety margins . Airlines want them to meet that regulation for fuel efficiency, but I'd want a source that they're actually safe-er , instead of simply safe enough

Boeing proved it safer . The reason is the increased complexity of more engines increased the risk of a major problem. My source is I was told this by the engineers who where involved.

Now see, the worst part is, I believe you. Your username pops up frequently enough, and is recognizable enough, that I consider you a reasonable, thoughtful person. And the rationale makes sense - juggling multiple engines is extremely complex

But now way in hell can I, in good conscience, repeat that without a source

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#188

Post by atlasunshrugged »

edm0nd wrote: post #141
Brian_K_White wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one takes the train in the US because they don't go anywhere you need to go and aren't nice to be on.

They are also simply too expensive that's why no one takes them imo. Why spend $2,500-$5,000 and your trip takes ~30+ hours when you can spend $650 and get there in a few hours via flying

Indeed, a few years ago I spent a couple hundred bucks to travel from DC to LA (in a seat, not a cabin). It took 3 days and was only a little cheaper than a flight that would have taken five hours, but it was something I always wanted to do. But if it were competing on price and/or convenience, long range train travel in the US almost always loses to flights except for in the Northeast corridor (and even then its at best a tossup)

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#189

Post by c22 »

esseph wrote: post #144
c22 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fyi, you appear to be shadowbanned and it's not clear why. You might consider sending an email to admin to work that out?

Post above you shows fine here. It's not grayed out or anything.

That's because I vouched for it.

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#190

Post by abecode »

codethief wrote: post #173
canpan wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These places still exist, but you need to look for them. Here in Japan, some remote islands, you can travel overnight boat. I love those. There might be a speed boat or plane, but I love boarding the boat in the evening, everyone feels like having a party, sleeping in a bed and arriving fresh in the morning. (If you are in Tokyo, the nearest is Oshima Island). There is also slow rail travel, with pretty trains, sleep…

> Here in Japan, some remote islands, you can travel overnight boat. I'm sure there are many overnight ferries all over the world and I can't say I have traveled with many, but one I can recommend is the overnight ferry from Ziguinchor/Senegal to Dakar – it's reasonably priced (for a foreigner), and the cabins are very comfortable and even include a shower! Meanwhile, the 3-day ferry from Puerto Montt (central Chile)…

Corsica to Marseilles has an overnight ferry, at least back in 2000, but I don't think it's has sleeper cabins, more set up like an overnight flight, but a big cruise ship form factor. Instead of cabins they had space for cars. They had the option of getting a ticket without a seat so you just roam around the boat and find an open space, including outside on the decks.
Post reply on HN