Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  1. I can't believe it, I really can't. I've just finished watching Superman - and it turns out it wasn't filmed on planet Krypton at all but right here on planet Earth! Did anybody else know this? My childhood is now destroyed. Sometimes I wonder why hardly anybody posts on Shetlink anymore, then I read topics like this and my memory is restored....
  2. We've had satellite broadband for nearly 2 years now, and I have to say that other than the higher costs I can't fault it. We didn't have much option other than satellite because we are literally the last house on the phone line, about 7 miles from the exchange, and the mobile coverage is patchy to say the least. We went for Broadband Wherever, the package is 20GB per month. There was a promotional £30 a month for the first three months, but then it went to the standard £50 per month. The advertised speeds of 20Mbps down and 6mbps upload can be fairly realsitic most of the time, and I find it gives a very consistent connection. The hardware cost was £150, plus £75 for installation. There's clearly a bit of lag in it, about 700ms is normal, but unless they fly the satellites lower that probably won't change. This can be slightly annoying if you're using it to speak to somebody, as you both speak at the same time then stare at each other on the screen for a few seconds, then do the same again. Obviously if you're into multiplayer gaming etc it's a non-starter. There is a fair user policy which they advertise as unlimited between midnight and 6am, but it isn't unlimited, and they will downgrade your connection to a drip feed if you regularly cane it in these hours. You can either buy or rent the equipment, renting is usually a 24month contract. Yes it's an expensive option but when you have nothing else you have to just go for it. We don't have a landline in the house so we're saving on that at least. Pros: Consistent speed Only viable option if rural/no mobile signal/detest BT Fire and forget - I haven't had to do anything to anything since it was set up Customer service is good, what little dealings I've had with them. Cons: Expensive Easy to hit monthly limit when you've been used to unlimited Very expensive if you want to top up data allowance (£15 a GB rings a bell but never used it) Delay in signal is annoying when using phone through internet 'Unlimited' claim off peak isn't really, and they'll eventually nab you if you take the p*ss Hope this is of some help.
  3. Seriously, is there anything you're not a world-wide expert on?
  4. I would think the challenge of building a 3000+ metre runway at Sumburgh pales into insignificance compared with the thought of going through Sumburgh security wearing a spacesuit.
  5. This thread sums up beautifully why I rarely go on Shetlink any more. Honestly, it should be called The Electron, as there is never anything positive about it. The OP - soon to be a resident here - asks a simple question in an upbeat post, (you'll find it in the dictionary), and instead of getting a wave of interesting and helpful advice, ('are you going to be living in town or the country?' 'make sure you go to xxxxxx, it's a great place.' 'Check out this website for some great dog-friendly walks...') she gets post after post of negative, irrelevant crap. ('Why does one person need 5 dogs?' 'Stay off the land! All of it!' 'Have you even read the 1564 Land Reform Act?' 'Groan.....') Yes groan indeed. Shetland is known the world over for being a forward thinking, friendly, happy to be place. Shetlink, for the best part, aint....
  6. Somehow I don't think that a real-time drive through the Kames would qualify as prime time television, but maybe that's just me. Why do folk get so hung up on geographical continuity/realism in a fictional TV drama? Do people living in Oxford watching Morse say "Well that's just ridiculous, the number 34 bus doesn't call at that bus stop. I was enjoying it until I saw that, now I feel a bit queasy...." OK it's probably not going to win any BAFTAs, but it's entertaining and it makes Shetland look fantastic. Also, it's fiction.....
  7. The one part of your last post I agree with Ghostie is that the reason Loganair are staying away from regional jets is due to cost. If they wanted to go into bankruptcy in the quickest possible time then flogging the Saabs and replacing them with a fleet of jets would certainly achieve this, but the unfortunate downside would be a very quiet Sumburgh airport. Bear in mind that Loganair are 'Scotland's Airline,' not 'Shetland's Airline.' They serve a multitude of other island groups that have nowhere near the facilities of Sumburgh, and carry nothing like the number of passengers. Can you imagine trying to fill a 60-70 seat jet in Tiree to fly to Glasgow four times a day? An airline operating many of the same type of aircraft makes far more sense than having multiple types. Think spares/maintenance costs, training, aircrew, manuals, cost of running etc. There is no such thing as 'old, cheap aircraft' when it comes to commercial flying. If you buy them cheap, they cost extremely dear in maintenance. If you buy new, they cost not quite as much in maintenance. It's not like buying a cheap car where you can live with the passenger's window not working and a rattly back end. The Saab 2000 is still classed as a modern turboprop, but rest assured the technology change between when it and the ATP came into service is huge. In earth years there may not be much between them but in terms of avionics and engine management and efficiency they are generations apart. Regional jets simply wouldn't work on the island routes. Not because it's a conspiracy (but keep the tinfoil hat handy, just in case), but due to very simple economics of scale. Jets only become efficient at high altitudes where they can burn less fuel to get greater performance. On the Sumburgh to Aberdeen/Edinburgh/Glasgow routes this would mean they would spend half their flight climbing to a more efficient, but not most efficient altitude, followed immediately by a descent. Sumburgh is the furthest flung Scottish airport which means that on every other route a jet wouldn't be able to get that high, meaning you'd be pouring fuel down the engines, increasing engine wear and ultimately putting a higher price on the ticket to pay for it. Another aspect is number of cycles (flights). If you have a jet doing a take-off and landing every 40 minutes it will soon rack up many cycles, decreasing the lifespan of the plane (most aircraft have some 'cycle limit' on them so they will have a reduced service life,) and making them more unattractive when you come to sell them again than one that's done 2-4 hour cycles. So the bottom line as far as I can see is that we will continue to be served by rattly old turboprops for many years to come, until such time as their cost/profit margin is so reduced that the only option will be to put on some regional jets. Probably 15-20 year old ones as that will be all that's affordable......
  8. The Loganair boss describing it as being bigger aircraft is being disingenuous with the facts to say the least. The old Viscount was rated for 75 passengers, the Budgie 40-58 and the ATP 64. Its only this last while with them using the 340 rated for only 30, and before it the Flying Shoe Box rated at 36, that gives the impression the 2000 rated at 50-58 is bigger, when in reality we're just returning to the general level of capacity per flight we enjoyed from the 60's to the 90's. How can the irrefutable fact that one type of plane is bigger than another be being 'disingenuous with the facts?' I reckon if you parked a Saab 340 and a Saab 2000 side by side on the apron and asked 100 people to point at the 'bigger' plane, most of them would probably get it right...... Yes other aircraft in ye olde dayse had greater capacity, but surely the number of commercial seats per day is considerably up on the 60s to 90s. Also with the longer runway of today they will be less restricted in performance limiting weather, meaning less people bumped off because of weight issues. Many's the time an ATP would have to have left with a lot of its 60 odd seats empty, making it a rather moot point.
  9. Sounds like a bit of a turban myth to me......
  10. ^^^ They would certainly go some way to changing driving techniques!
  11. I've never understood the concept of a 'Baby on Board' sticker as some sort of anti-collision device. It's not as if your average driver is thinking "OK, I won't crash into that car today, there's a baby in it. I'll look out for another one to career into out of control...." I find that a fairly high percentage of these sticker bearing cars tend to have so much crap piled up in the back windows, (toys, clothes etc) that they pose more of a danger than the cars they tut at everytime they go past (I'm not saying you are one of them ohpollocks!), and the number of times I've been behind a car with the force-field of the sticker attached only to see the driver turning and reaching right behind them while doing 40, 50 or 60 mph to give little Joey his dummy back beggars belief. Sadly this is very true
  12. Also, can you imagine the dialogue with your insurers if somebody rear-ends you because you switched your fog lights off when you think they saw you? Person "Hello, some git's just rear-ended me in dense fog and written off my car." Insurer "That's jolly bad luck, I hope you're alright. So you were driving in dense fog, I presume you had your rear fog light on?" Person "Err, no, actually, I switched it off when I saw him in my mirror." Insurer "Um, err, could you say that again?" Person "My fog light was on, in case there were any cars behind me. Then when I then saw a car behind me I switched it off." Insurer "Well why did you do that?" Person "So that he wouldn't see my fog light." Insurer "OK, I don't fully understand. So you switched your fog warning light off while driving in fog, to warn the other driver that you were in fog and to let him know that you thought he had probably seen you." Person "Yes." Insurer "And had he seen you?" Person "No." Insurer "Why not?" Person "Because I switched my fog light off." Insurer "Yeah, we're probably not going to pay out your insurance."
  13. It's interesting to hear folk's opinions in this subject, obviously everybody has different ideas of what's best and why. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the "on-off-on" method in fog. If you are in fog and the car behind you is driving so close that you can see not only his lights but the vehicle itself then they are driving dangerously close to you (assuming an open stretch of road, not urban.) If they are being dazzled by my fog light then they should back off to a safe distance, thus giving a far greater reaction time and less chance of rear-ending the lead car. Possibly, but at the same time if you switch off your rear fog light and aren't braking, he is going to lose sight of you as he sure as hell isn't going to see your tail lights if it is foggy. He has gone from having a positive visual reference to the car in front of him to losing sight of it, but knowing it is still very close - but no idea of knowing how close. This is far more dangerous. There is only ever one rear fog light on a vehicle, so the brake lights will still be visible, especially on the side of the car which doesn't contain the fog light in its cluster. Many fog lights are mounted below the bumper so both brake lights are visible. I agree about people hanging on to the vehicle in front in heavy fog, and here lies the root of the problem. Why does somebody have to drive so close to the car in front at all times, whatever the weather? I would personally rather drive in fog with no car in front of me but knowing that if they are there they should have their fog lights on, rather than constantly driving so close to the car in front that my concentration level is reduced over time with my desperation to stay in sight of him - especially if he is frequently switching his fog light off and on. In either case, again if the car following close behind you is being dazzled by your fog light (and it is actually foggy) then again he is driving far too close and should back off so that he is a)not being dazzled and has a fighting chance of stopping in time should the lead car stop suddenly. Exactly - it would be ideal if people would do it! ..... and what exactly do you do to it in fog?! Treble it? times it by ten? I don't think the Two Second Rule really applies in fog, does it? I would be very worried if the driver behind me was relying on that in reduced visiblity. Of course I can't, it's an impossible figure to compute. Yes they will, especially if people have less time to react because so many drivers are switching their fog lights off and on..... Out of interest, (and I know this doesn't apply to Shetland (yet!)) how do you manage your fog lights if driving on a dual carriageway? If you see a car behind you but in the next lane do you switch your fog light off? What happens if a car comes up behind you in the lane you are in after this, do you switch it back on again? Oh no you can't, there's a car in the next lane behind you, but he's seen you and the car behind you hasn't, so maybe it should be switched back on? Oh wait, no that will dazzle the other driver so I'll just......BANG!!!! Car crash..... Either way, absolutely. Things can very quickly turn bad, especially when folk canna see
  14. ^^ I still disagree with your 'technique.' If you can see the vehicle behind you in fog then he is too damn close! Assuming it is proper fog conditions, less than 100m visibility, if you are driving close enough to the car in front to be dazzled by its fog light then you are probably driving closer than your car's stopping distance, should you have to stop suddenly. 40mph - stopping distance 36 metres 50mph - stopping distance 53 metres 60mph - stopping distance 73 metres Whilst I don't personally find it too challenging to operate a single switch, the bit I do struggle with is the telepathy of knowing when the driver behind me has seen me. Folk drive into each other on beautiful clear days when they should see the car in front/behind/next to them, so how can you be sure they've seen you in fog? You'd be surprised how blind some drivers can be. As for switching them on and off, may I suggest you absorb the advise of those good folks at the AA (not the alcoholics one): From www.theaa.com Fog lights Use common sense when it comes to fog lights. Some drivers are worried about dazzling other motorists, and some simply don't know how to turn them on. Generally it's better to be safe than sorry, so use them when appropriate. Don't keep switching them on and off, though – this can be a distraction, so wait for a consistent improvement in visibility before switching them off - front and back. I'm going to go with them on this one
  15. I don't agree with this method of fog light use at all - the idea of switching them off when you see the headlights of another car behind you, I've never heard of that before. If you are driving in genuine foggy conditions (ie viz below 100m) then if a car behind you sees your fog light in front of them, your fog light hasn't done its job, it's doing its job. If you then switch your fog light off he is no longer visible with you, as the fog light was the only part of your vehicle he could see to judge his distance from you. If you go and switch your light off he has lost his only visual reference. A fog light is very bright in normal, clear, daytime conditions, but in condensed water vapour the light is diffused to a much lower intensity by the suspended water droplets. You would have to be very close (way too close) to a car in fog to be dazzled by its fog light. Driving in those condition can be challenging enough without constantly switching your fog light off and on everytime you see a car in your mirror. Even more simples is if the visibility is seriously reduced - fog light goes on, when visibility improves - fog light goes off again.
  • Create New...