New EOBR Petition Thread


Actually they need a catapult and a rail.

WRIGHT BROTHERS FIRST FLIGHT - YouTube

Nope. Just a rail, and the rail was only because the thing didn't have wheels, and the location they chose wouldn't have worked well with wheels anyway.

No catapult was used when they made their historic first flight. I don't know when/where that video was filmed, but somebody titled it wrong. It took off under it's own power, and Wilbur was running alongside.

View attachment 18828

The wikipedia caption for the photo above is:

First flight of the Wright Flyer I, December 17, 1903, Orville piloting, Wilbur running at wingtip.

This photo looks more like the scene in the video you posted.

View attachment 18829

Caption:

Orville in flight over Huffman Prairie, Dayton, Ohio, in Wright Flyer II. Flight #85, approximately 1,760 feet (536 m) in 40 1/5 seconds, November 16, 1904.
View attachment 18828View attachment 18829
 

That video is not from the 1903 flight at Kitty Hawk. Look at the background, there are trees. The first flight was done on sand, as you can see in the first photo.

Here's pasted from Wright brothers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia describing a period of time in 1904, in Ohio.

At Huffman Prairie, lighter winds and lower air density than in Kitty Hawk (because of Ohio's higher altitude and higher temperatures) made takeoffs very difficult, and they had to use a much longer starting rail, stretching to hundreds of feet, compared to the 60-foot (18 m) rail at Kitty Hawk. During the spring and summer they suffered many hard landings, real crackups, repeated Flyer damage, and bodily bumps and bruises. On August 13, making an unassisted takeoff, Wilbur finally exceeded their best Kitty Hawk effort with a flight of 1,300 feet (400 m). Then they decided to use a weight-powered catapult to make takeoffs easier and tried it for the first time on September 7. On September 20, 1904, Wilbur flew the first complete circle in history by a manned heavier-than-air powered machine, covering 4,080 feet (1,244 m) in about a minute and a half. Their two best flights were November 9 by Wilbur and December 1 by Orville, each exceeding five minutes and covering nearly three miles in almost four circles.
 
pee.jpg


winner_winner_chicken_dinner_irony_humor_photosculpture-p153654763952430359bfnwk_400.jpg
 
That video is not from the 1903 flight at Kitty Hawk. Look at the background, there are trees. The first flight was done on sand, as you can see in the first photo.

Here's pasted from Wright brothers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia describing a period of time in 1904, in Ohio.

At Huffman Prairie, lighter winds and lower air density than in Kitty Hawk (because of Ohio's higher altitude and higher temperatures) made takeoffs very difficult, and they had to use a much longer starting rail, stretching to hundreds of feet, compared to the 60-foot (18 m) rail at Kitty Hawk. During the spring and summer they suffered many hard landings, real crackups, repeated Flyer damage, and bodily bumps and bruises. On August 13, making an unassisted takeoff, Wilbur finally exceeded their best Kitty Hawk effort with a flight of 1,300 feet (400 m). Then they decided to use a weight-powered catapult to make takeoffs easier and tried it for the first time on September 7. On September 20, 1904, Wilbur flew the first complete circle in history by a manned heavier-than-air powered machine, covering 4,080 feet (1,244 m) in about a minute and a half. Their two best flights were November 9 by Wilbur and December 1 by Orville, each exceeding five minutes and covering nearly three miles in almost four circles.

Very good Duckie. I can accept your premise that the picture is of their first flight, and the film footage was probably a later date. I base this on the fact that in the picture there is one pilot (laying down), and in the film there are two pilots (sitting upright). This would be consistent with technological advancement.

Still doesn't change the fact they were not the first to fly, and they did not invent the first powered aircraft. What they are credited with is the first CONTROLLED flight of an airplane. But that may not even be the end on that story. Read this:

Debate with the Smithsonian

The Smithsonian Institution, and primarily its then-secretary Charles Walcott, refused to give credit to the Wright Brothers for the first powered, controlled flight of an aircraft. Instead, they honored the former Smithsonian Secretary Samuel Pierpont Langley, whose 1903 tests of his own Aerodrome on the Potomac were not successful. Walcott was a friend of Langley and wanted to see Langley's place in aviation history restored. In 1914, Glenn Curtiss flew a heavily modified Aerodrome from Keuka Lake, N.Y., providing the Smithsonian a basis for its claim that the aircraft was the first powered, heavier than air flying machine "capable" of manned flight. Due to the legal patent battles then taking place, recognition of the 'first' aircraft became a political as well as an academic issue.

In 1925, Orville attempted to persuade the Smithsonian to recognize his and Wilbur's accomplishment by offering to send the Flyer to the Science Museum in London. This action did not have its intended effect, and the Flyer went on display in the London museum in 1928. During World War II, it was moved to an underground vault 100 miles (160 km) from London where Britain's other treasures were kept safe from the conflict.

In 1942 the Smithsonian Institution, under a new secretary, Charles Abbot (Walcott had died in 1927), published a list of the Curtiss modifications to the Aerodrome and a retraction of its long-held claims for the craft. The next year, Orville, after exchanging several letters with Abbott, agreed to return the Flyer to the United States. The Flyer stayed at the Science Museum until a replica could be built, based on the original. This change of heart by the Smithsonian is also mired in controversy – the Flyer was sold to the Smithsonian under several contractual conditions, one of which reads:

"Neither the Smithsonian Institution or its successors, nor any museum or other agency, bureau or facilities administered for the United States of America by the Smithsonian Institution or its successors shall publish or permit to be displayed a statement or label in connection with or in respect of any aircraft model or design of earlier date than the Wright Aeroplane of 1903, claiming in effect that such aircraft was capable of carrying a man under its own power in controlled flight."[6][7]

Some aviation buffs, particularly those who promote the accomplishments of pioneer aviator Gustave Whitehead, have commented that this agreement renders the Smithsonian unable to make properly unbiased academic decisions concerning any prior claims of 'first flight'.[8]

In 1948, the Flyer was returned to the United States on board the Mauretania. When the liner docked at Halifax, Nova Scotia, Paul E. Garber of the Smithsonian's National Air Museum met the aircraft and took command of the proceedings. The rest of the journey to Washington continued on flatbed truck. While in Halifax Garber met John A. D. McCurdy, at the time the Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia. McCurdy as a young man had been a member of Alexander Graham Bell's team Aerial Experiment Association, which included Glenn Curtiss, and later a famous pioneer pilot. During the stay at Halifax, Garber and McCurdy reminisced about the pioneer aviation days and the Wright Brothers. McCurdy also offered Garber any assistance he needed to get the Flyer home.[9]
 
You wanna go back to bouncing along above the steer axle in the ergonomic nightmare known as a cabover tractor go ahead. Meanwhile, I will arrogantly ride in the comfort of a conventional rig. I've driven a number of different cabover trucks over the past 40 years, and cussed every one.

I give up. I have no idea how you connected cabovers with anything I have said.

And yes I have been known to complain about left lane bandits. The rules of the road are keep right except to pass. Some states even have laws prohibiting left lane usage except for passing. I can't imagine the arrogant Texas lawmakers ever admitting that anyone came up with "Left Lane Is For Passing Only" but them.

The point was that americans did not invent left lane passing etiquette rules. It was adopted from another culture.
 
The Smithsonian Institution, and primarily its then-secretary Charles Walcott, refused to give credit to the Wright Brothers for the first powered, controlled flight of an aircraft. Instead, they honored the former Smithsonian Secretary Samuel Pierpont Langley, whose 1903 tests of his own Aerodrome on the Potomac were not successful. Walcott was a friend of Langley and wanted to see Langley's place in aviation history restored. In 1914, Glenn Curtiss flew a heavily modified Aerodrome from Keuka Lake, N.Y., providing the Smithsonian a basis for its claim that the aircraft was the first powered, heavier than air flying machine "capable" of manned flight. Due to the legal patent battles then taking place, recognition of the 'first' aircraft became a political as well as an academic issue.

(blah blah blah)

– the Flyer was sold to the Smithsonian under several contractual conditions, one of which reads:

"Neither the Smithsonian Institution or its successors, nor any museum or other agency, bureau or facilities administered for the United States of America by the Smithsonian Institution or its successors shall publish or permit to be displayed a statement or label in connection with or in respect of any aircraft model or design of earlier date than the Wright Aeroplane of 1903, claiming in effect that such aircraft was capable of carrying a man under its own power in controlled flight."[6][7]

(blah blah blah)

Seems the contract was to make sure there were no more bull**** claims made by future jackasses like that Walcott guy.

The point was that americans did not invent left lane passing etiquette rules. It was adopted from another culture.

What other culture were you talking about? I think I remember a reference to England or Europe. In England they drive on the wrong side of the road.
 
Well. From personal experience, if you don't "clear the rear" before trying to pass on the Autobahn, you are likely to wind up causing a rear-ender crash that will be your fault. I never caused a crash, but they travel in excess of 100 MILES per hour over there.

It's not etiquette so much as self-preservation.
 
What other culture were you talking about? I think I remember a reference to England or Europe. In England they drive on the wrong side of the road.


Its been the LAW in Germany for over 40 years that I know of. But what really makes the law work is another law that you can't pass on the right. Those two laws about the most serious traffic violations you can get a ticket for.
 
Seems the contract was to make sure there were no more bull**** claims made by future jackasses like that Walcott guy.

That's one way to look at it. This was a time in history when patent rights were more important than facts and many inventors were credited for things because they had a better lawyer, not because they were first. It was a brutal time in American business.
 
I give up. I have no idea how you connected cabovers with anything I have said.

You commented about American arrogance concerning European precedent. Tim commented on the cabovers.

There was a reason that cabovers are still used in Europe, the simple fact of space conservation to maximize load carrying in a smaller package. The idea fell out of favor in North America not out of arrogance but simply because there is no need to cram the engine, driving and sleeping compartment towards the front of the truck to conserve space and maximize load carrying capability with an uncomfortable and inconvenient design.

If anything, it is the Europeans who are arrogant, simply because they refuse to open up 13th century donkey cart paths for 21st century traffic.
 
and this...



HOURS OF SERVICE FACTS & CHRONOLOGY

KEY LAWS AFFECTING MOTOR CARRIERS


1937: Current Hours-of-Service rules issued by Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC):
• ICC Commissioners expressed misgivings that rules might not be conducive to safety.


1938: Fair Labor Standards Act exemption:
• trucking industry exempted from overtime compensation;
• creates incentive to drive long hours putting drivers and the public at risk;
• no major profession in the U.S. accrues more work hours under a formal regulatory regime than truck and motor coach (bus) drivers.




1984: Motor Carrier Safety Act requires DOT standards that must ensure:
• commercial vehicles (trucks and buses) are operated safely;
• driver responsibilities do not impair ability to operate vehicles safely;
• physical condition of drivers is adequate to operate their vehicles safely;
• operation of trucks does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of drivers.


1995: Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act:
• directs FHWA (predecessor agency to FMCSA) to deal with a variety of fatigue-related issued pertaining to commercial motor vehicle safety;
• specifically mentions need to address amount of sleep after driving time, loading/unloading, automated recording devices, rest/recovery cycles, fatigue and stress in longer combination vehicles, fitness for duty, other measures to reduce fatigue-related crashes and increase driver alertness.

1999: Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999:
• requires creation of a new safety agency, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA);
• emphasizes need to focus on and improve commercial motor vehicle safety;
• establishes safety as the highest priority of new agency.


2004: Congress enacts temporary extension of surface transportation authorization legislation:
• following July, 2004, U.S. Court of Appeals decision finding FMCSA HOS final rule of April, 2003, to be in violation of law and probably arbitrary and capricious, Congress supersedes court decision and allows agency to continue to enforce final rule until completion of new rulemaking or September 30, 2005, whichever comes first.






HISTORY OF THE HOURS-OF-SERVICE RULEMAKING


1937: Interstate Commerce Commission adopts hours of service for interstate commercial drivers:


• drivers are required to work on 24-hour cycle, drive maximum 10 hours, rest minimum 8 hours;
• drivers can accrue up to 60 hours of driving over 7 consecutive days, 70 hours of driving over 8
consecutive days.


1962: Interstate Commerce Commission Eliminates Requirement for work/rest on a 24 hour cycle:
• commercial drivers can now constantly alternate maximum 10 hours of driving with minimum 8 hours
of rest – an 18-hour, non-circadian cycle that increases sleep deprivation and fatigue;
• commercial drivers can exhaust available 60 hours of driving over 7 consecutive days, in less than 5 days and 70 hours of driving over 8 consecutive days, in slightly more than 5 days;
• when drivers are “out of driving hours,” they must lay over until the beginning of a new 7- or 8-day tour of duty that allows them another 60 or 70 total hours of driving.

1978: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issues Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)
to provide drivers with more rest time:
• proposal to improve driver rest and recovery without increasing driver duty and driving hours;
• stressed elevated health risks to drivers including chronic problems of diet, sleep deprivation leading to hazardous driving, mental and physical stress, emotional/psychological deficits resulting from long periods away from home and family, and exposure to excessive heat and carbon monoxide;
• rulemaking was proposed by the Carter Administration and withdrawn by the Reagan Administration
in 1981.


1992: FHWA issues Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) to increase on-duty hours and shorten weekly off-duty layover period:
• over 70,000 comments filed, with the overwhelming majority opposed to longer hours;
• leading Congressional members opposed longer hours;
• major health, safety, union, insurer, law enforcement, consumer, victims and some industry groups opposed longer driver hours;
• FHWA stated supporters of rule provided no substantive research to justify increasing duty hours and
reducing off-duty time;
• rulemaking was proposed by the Bush Administration in 1992 and withdrawn by the Clinton
Administration in 1993.


1997: FHWA issues ANPRM request for research on driver fatigue:
• FHWA failed to cite numerous studies on fatigue and performance;
• FHWA spent $4.5 million on deeply flawed Driver Fatigue and Alertness Study (DFAS) which was partly directed by the trucking industry;
• FHWA tries to avoid inclusion and public review of DFAS in the ANPRM;
• FHWA withholds expert panel report severely critical of DFAS until required to release report under
Freedom of Information Act.


2000: FMCSA issues NPRM that increases the maximum consecutive driving hours (May 2, 2000):
• proposed rule requires that work and rest alternate only within a 24 hour period;
• proposed rule mandates electronic onboard recorders for long-haul and regional drivers;
• proposed rule expands the maximum consecutive driving hours from 10 to 12 hours;
• proposed rule increases the off-duty rest time from 8 to 9-12 hours, depending on the type of driver;


• proposed rule provides no distinction between driving and non-driving on-duty time;
• there is no research that shows increasing off-duty time counteracts the decreased performance and elevated risk produced by more driving hours.



2003: FMCSA issues a final rule that further increases maximum driving hours (April 28, 2003):
• final rule allows work and rest to alternate on a 21 hour rotation;
• final rule does not require electronic onboard recorders;
• final rule reduces time for rest in each shift to 10 hours;
• final rule re-establishes split rest time periods in sleeper berths;
• final rule increases former consecutive driving time in each shift from 10 to 11 hours;
• final rule allows drivers to take off a minimum of 34 consecutive hours, after which they can again start driving another 70 or 80 hours;
• 34 hours layover forces drivers to drive during what formerly was layover time between tours of duty;
• final rule increases maximum driving hours from 60 to 77 hours over 7 consecutive days, and
increases maximum driving hours from 70 to 88 hours over 8 consecutive days;
• FMCSA provides no support for these changes in the final rule or in the accompanying regulatory
evaluation and benefit-cost analysis.


2003: Public Citizen, with Advocates as amicus curiae, files suit against the FMCSA challenging validity of HOS final rule (June 12, 2003):
• suit alleges that the agency acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and not in accordance with law;
• suit alleges that the agency failed to fulfill a statutory requirement to address the need for electronic onboard recorders;
• suit emphasizes that none of the changes in the final rule are adequately supported in the
administrative record;
• suit shows that the agency has ignored earlier admissions about the dangers of increasing consecutive driving time;
• suit demonstrates that the benefit cost analysis on which the final rule relies is fundamentally
flawed.


2004: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision overturns and vacates entire final rule and remands to the agency (July 16, 2004):
• opinion holds that the agency violates the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 by failing to ensure that
the regulation protects the health of commercial drivers;
• remainder of opinion vacates the entire rule and indicates that each of the major features of the final rule is inadequately supported in the existing rulemaking record;
• remainder of opinion states that agency failed to satisfy all of the requirements of Sec. 408 of the
Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995;
• FMCSA begins work to attempt to justify the April 2003 final rule by forming an expert intra-agency task force to study how to defend or modify the regulation;
• Congress approves special provision that retains HOS rules for one year giving FMCSA until September
30, 2005 to complete new HOS rulemaking in response to court decision.


2005: FMCSA issues new HOS rule that retains dramatic increases of maximum driving hours


• FMCSA publishes proposed HOS rule on January 24, 2005 that merely restates the 2003 rule;
• On August 16, 2005, FMCSA issues new HOS final rule that is identical to the 2003 HOS rule in most respects, keeping the longer 11-hour limit on consecutive driving hours, the minimal 34-hour off duty “restart”, and allowing more cumulative work and driving hours than the pre-2003 rule;
• Only changes in new HOS from 2003 rule is to allow short-haul drivers to work even longer hours twice each week, and to require, and to require at least one 8-hour rest period in sleeper berths;
• Petition for Reconsideration filed by Public Citizen, Advocates, CRASH, P.A.T.T., Trauma Foundation
and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters on September 23, 2005
 
I am seeing this mandatory 8 hour thing bandied about a lot recently. As far as I know, the only time you are required to log 8 continuous sleeper berth hours is when you use the 8/2 split. When taking a full 10, there is no provision requiring that 8 of it be in the sleeper.
 
I am seeing this mandatory 8 hour thing bandied about a lot recently. As far as I know, the only time you are required to log 8 continuous sleeper berth hours is when you use the 8/2 split. When taking a full 10, there is no provision requiring that 8 of it be in the sleeper.

Ten hours off duty resets the 14 hour clock and gives you another 11 hours of driving, and you are correct that it can be drawn on line one.

You are also correct that if you split your break then 8 continuous hours must be logged on line two.

The gripe is that nothing less than 8 in the bunk stops the clock. Driving time ticks away while you're sleeping until you can log 8 hours sleeping, but you may need only 2 or three hours to eliminate drowsiness, to regain alertness. It's a hell of a valid gripe.
 

Back
Top