# Pan Am, "Pilot", OAD 9/25/2011



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

Well, that was a mixed bag to me. Here's my random comments:

1. 1960s nostalgia is all in vogue now, and this did do a rather good job of reliving the golden age of aviation. It's no Mad Men, but it's not too bad.

2. Did anyone else think that the CGI graphics were rather, umm, crappy? Heck, I've seen better special effects from open source flight simulators...

3. I'll have to go into "suspension of disbelief" mode if I'm going to keep watching this, since they don't get a lot of the aviation details right... But hey, this is an ABC drama, not a documentary.

This has some promise, I'll stay watching for a bit.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

kaszeta said:


> 3. I'll have to go into "suspension of disbelief" mode if I'm going to keep watching this, since they don't get a lot of the aviation details right...


I had to grit my teeth at "with you" on the check-in.

Ricci is getting more attractive the older she gets.

--Carlos V.


----------



## atrac (Feb 27, 2002)

I had high hopes for this, and was let down. I found it really corny and cliched. 

I actually thought some of the effects were pretty good. Others, not so much.

I'm going to give it a few more episodes but with all the shows to watch, it's already on my chopping block.


----------



## Waldorf (Oct 4, 2002)

kaszeta said:


> 2. Did anyone else think that the CGI graphics were rather, umm, crappy? Heck, I've seen better special effects from open source flight simulators...


After SMG's "Ringer", this was some super crazy advanced Lucasfilm Industrial Light & Magic wizardry.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

We very much enjoyed the first 17 minutes but the TiVo apparently choked and failed to record the rest.


----------



## ellinj (Feb 26, 2002)

Overall I was kind of "meh" on the show. However, there was a lot of exposition going on in the first episode. The CIA angle adds some interesting options for story telling in the future. I will keep watching for now.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I would like to have checked this out but there're too many other things at that timeslot. Oh well.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Saw the extended ad's for this while watching Desperate Housewives(yes we still watch ) and both my wife and I said the same thing..."That show ill never make it".

I predict it gets canned after a few episodes.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I'm so so on it too. But it's a pilot, so I will give it a chance to develop. Is this show really a "cloak and dagger" show? Is that the focus?

Maybe there will be less CGI in later episodes. But how else are you really going to show 1960 vintage aircraft (707) on a regular basis? Flying real ones gets crazy expensive.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

CGI was pretty weak, but I'm not expecting much from TV show budget.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

jsmeeker said:


> Maybe there will be less CGI in later episodes. But how else are you really going to show 1960 vintage aircraft (707) on a regular basis?


Oh, I'm expecting CGI. But this wasn't particularly good CGI. But vertigo235 is probably right, this may have been the best they could do for their budget.

At least whoever did the aircraft model did a little research. I haven't seen a commercial flight flying with a multi-tube sound suppressor (notice that the engines have a bunch of tubes coming out of the back of them, unlike today's engines) on the engines in quite a long time.



> Flying real ones gets crazy expensive.


You're talking to someone who has actually rented C-130s and 737s. Actually, it's not *that* bad[1].  Harder would probably be finding someone with a suitably-close 707 that was willing to let you repaint it....

[1] The C-130 was $9000/hr. The 737 was $27k for a 6 hour charter. The C-130 was a better deal, since the pilots were crazy and would do just about anything you asked (high-G turns, induced dutch rolls, flat turns, ....)


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I actually liked it.

Great final image of the 4 girls walking.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

The biggest issue with the CGI was that the planes were just too shiny. Like glossy plastic.


----------



## ellinj (Feb 26, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> The biggest issue with the CGI was that the planes were just too shiny. Like glossy plastic.


Well, it was supposed to be brand new.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

ellinj said:


> Well, it was supposed to be brand new.


even brand new, I don't think the paint is that glossy/shiy.


----------



## ellinj (Feb 26, 2002)

Are we supposed to believe that Bridget was on some sort of clandestine meeting in Cuba when she was late returning to the plane?


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

ellinj said:


> Are we supposed to believe that Bridget was on some sort of clandestine meeting in Cuba when she was late returning to the plane?


I believe so.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

kaszeta said:


> At least whoever did the aircraft model did a little research. I haven't seen a commercial flight flying with a multi-tube sound suppressor (notice that the engines have a bunch of tubes coming out of the back of them, unlike today's engines) on the engines in quite a long time.


Thanks! I did notice that and was wondering about it, I looked up some photos of 707s and didn't see any that looked like that.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

vertigo235 said:


> Thanks! I did notice that and was wondering about it, I looked up some photos of 707s and didn't see any that looked like that.


Here's a photo from Air and Space magazine showing a 707 JT3C engine from that era (from some sort of test aircraft, since a much, much more modern high-bypass turbofan is mounted on another pylon):










Another fun one: The (now gone) JFK/Idlewild Pan Am terminal did originally have open-air jetways:


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

Here's an article with the reaction of two former Pan Am flight attendants about the accuracy of the show. Apparantly the show is pretty darn accurate, including the rumors of CIA involvement.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Ahh... the old straight jets. Those things were LOUD.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

It was ok - will keep SP for now.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Alfer said:


> Saw the extended ad's for this while watching Desperate Housewives(yes we still watch ) and both my wife and I said the same thing..."That show ill never make it".
> 
> I predict it gets canned after a few episodes.


It had more viewers last night then Desperate Housewives did and actually beat CSI: Miami.

http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/09/26/desperate-housewives-way-down-pam-am-still-manages-to-take-flight/

So it will probably be around for awhile.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Azlen said:


> It had more viewers last night then Desperate Housewives did and actually beat CSI: Miami.
> 
> http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/09/26/desperate-housewives-way-down-pam-am-still-manages-to-take-flight/
> 
> So it will probably be around for awhile.


Premieres for new shows can skew high out of initial interest, it's the following week's that will tell.

I for one try to catch as many premieres as I can and drop ones that don't grab me.

Add to that, many of the premiere episodes are airing more than once, this can also skew numbers as the networks try to grab an audience.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Langree said:


> Premieres for new shows can skew high out of initial interest, it's the following week's that will tell.
> 
> I for one try to catch as many premieres as I can and drop ones that don't grab me.
> 
> Add to that, many of the premiere episodes are airing more than once, this can also skew numbers as the networks try to grab an audience.


True but the shows that usually get quick hooks are the ones that premier bad and then drop. Shows that premier well usually hang around for a little bit longer unless they just drop off the table. Based on the premier numbers and the fairly positive reviews, it's a safe bet that it won't be canned after a few episodes, which is what the original poster had predicted.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Azlen said:


> True but the shows that usually get quick hooks are the ones that premier bad and then drop. Shows that premier well usually hang around for a little bit longer unless they just drop off the table. Based on the premier numbers and the fairly positive reviews, it's a safe bet that it won't be canned after a few episodes, which is what the original poster had predicted.


also, Pan Am premiered last night, so there haven't been multiple airings of the show for them to combine for ratings purposes.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Cainebj said:


> I actually liked it.
> 
> Great final image of the 4 girls walking.


I liked that shot too.

My wife and I kinda liked it so we'll keep watching.

What's not to like about a pilot about pilots?!


----------



## JoBeth66 (Feb 15, 2002)

I enjoyed it - I liked the characters, and the story was engaging enough that we'll keep watching it for now.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Not much of the story line was about the pilot. They should have called this episode something different.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

JETarpon said:


> Not much of the story line was about the pilot. They should have called this episode something different.


Reminds me of The Shield, which did an episode a few years in that filled in some of the backstory and gaps in the pilot.

They called it "Co-Pilot."


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Reminds me of The Shield, which did an episode a few years in that filled in some of the backstory and gaps in the pilot.
> 
> They called it "Co-Pilot."


That's "First Officer" to you...


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

JETarpon said:


> Not much of the story line was about the pilot. They should have called this episode something different.


Stewardess


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

kaszeta said:


> At least whoever did the aircraft model did a little research. I haven't seen a commercial flight flying with a multi-tube sound suppressor (notice that the engines have a bunch of tubes coming out of the back of them, unlike today's engines) on the engines in quite a long time.


I loved seeing that detail! I thought the CGI was perhaps a bit over ambitious in its scope, but overall it worked OK.

Really nice score by Blake Neely.


----------



## jpwoof (May 19, 2004)

i love the pilot! buckle up. adventure calls!


----------



## StacieH (Jan 2, 2009)

I really enjoyed it, and will give it at least a few more chances.

When I was a kid, we traveled overseas...ALOT. We lived in Indonesia for 4 years and would travel back and forth to the States twice a year. We often flew Pan Am. And Singapore Airlines....and Qantas. I had wings from all three, and many airlines gave kids the snap-together models of the planes. We had an absolute ball.

We're talking the late 70s-early 80s here....but I have good memories of it all. Now? I can't stand to fly. Go figure....


----------



## Jon J (Aug 23, 2000)

vertigo235 said:


> CGI was pretty weak, but I'm not expecting much from TV show budget.


The cost of the Pan Am pilot was said to be second only to Terra Nova at $10 million. I saw very little that was not absolutely period correct except the interior size of the 707. I remember them being a bit smaller.


----------



## lalouque (Feb 11, 2002)

I was TOTALLY amazed at how wide the center aisle was on the plane. Was that realistic??


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

lalouque said:


> I was TOTALLY amazed at how wide the center aisle was on the plane. Was that realistic??


I think that was a bit of artistic license. Here's a comparison pic of first-class seating in a 707 of that vintage (albeit a TWA one):


----------



## lalouque (Feb 11, 2002)

kaszeta said:


> I think that was a bit of artistic license. Here's a comparison pic of first-class seating in a 707 of that vintage (albeit a TWA one):


Ahh, that's more like what I expected.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> even brand new, I don't think the paint is that glossy/shiy.


Remember this would be pre global warming so maybe everything was shinier.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I flew in Boeing 707s when I was young. Spent 13 hours in them, one way, to fly to Israel. Three seats, not two, on each side. Very cramped. Not fun.

And when they got 747s, we were still flying El Al to Israel, so no pretty lounges or wide aisles. They crammed those 3-4-3 seats in there like sardines.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Graymalkin said:


> I flew in Boeing 707s when I was young. Spent 13 hours in them, one way, to fly to Israel. Three seats, not two, on each side. Very cramped. Not fun.
> 
> And when they got 747s, we were still flying El Al to Israel, so no pretty lounges or wide aisles. They crammed those 3-4-3 seats in there like sardines.


Ugh....we're flying Continental Airlines ORD --> EWR --> TLV and back in November...hope it's not that cramped...


----------



## ellinj (Feb 26, 2002)

Bierboy said:


> Ugh....we're flying Continental Airlines ORD --> EWR --> TLV and back in November...hope it's not that cramped...


It looks like CO operates a 777 on that route so it will be 3-3-3

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Continental_Airlines/Continental_Airlines_Boeing_777_200_Flat.php


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Here is one question I have... All of the lead acrtresses are like betweeen 27-30ish if I am correct.

That seems a little old to me for that time period. Especially in the guise of young ladies out there trying to meet a husband. I wonder what age they are supposed to be on the show? 

I certainly would not argue that people in 1963 in their early twenties were not a lot a lot more mature than they are now, so that doesn't bother me, but I was just curious what anyone else thought about the age thing. Seems to me they are all playing characters 5 years younger then themselves, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

It's a variant of the Dawson Casting trope. Yes, all the characters are supposed to be younger than 28, even though the actresses are older. Ricci is around 31 years old, I think.

And I apologize in advance for the huge timesink I introduced you to in the form of tvtropes.org.

--Carlos V.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Unbeliever said:


> It's a variant of the Dawson Casting trope. Yes, all the characters are supposed to be younger than 28, even though the actresses are older. Ricci is around 31 years old, I think.


Same thing happens in comic books, which is a little strange since it's drawings and not actual actresses. Teen-aged and college-aged women are always drawn as if they're 30-year-old hookers.

I remember when John Cassaday drew Astonishing X-Men, and he drew Kitty Pryde as if she were an actual college-aged woman. And many fans screamed because she didn't look like Kitty Pryde...i.e., she didn't look like a 30-year-old hooker.

I wonder if the American TV-watching public would even accept high school kids on TV shows who looked like high school kids, after all these years of being indoctrinated into thinking that high school kids should look like college-age magazine models?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I thought it was ok. The wife didn't really like it, so we'll give it one more shot at least. The biggest problem I had with the show was all the stewardesses looked the same to me. I had a hard time telling them apart, especially the sisters and the one that came on late as the replacement. And actually Bridgett looked kind of like them too. The only one I could tell apart was the french lady.

I liked this a period piece and I thought it looked stunning in HD. I loved how they got to "use" the Pan Am building for helicopter transport (it's now the Met Life Bldg.) When I was a kid that was always cool walking down Park Ave and seeing the helicopters take off from there. It was fun telling my son about it.


----------



## Jon J (Aug 23, 2000)

In the very earliest days, didn't all stewardesses have to be registered nurses...or did I dream that?


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I wonder if the American TV-watching public would even accept high school kids on TV shows who looked like high school kids, after all these years of being indoctrinated into thinking that high school kids should look like college-age magazine models?


It's a one-off, but they do well with Castle. Molly Quinn has gotten rave reviews for playing Alexis, and they're playing her age appropriate. She's 17/18 playing a girl in her Senior year about to go into Stanford a semester early.

--Carlos V.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I thought it was ok. The wife didn't really like it, so we'll give it one more shot at least. The biggest problem I had with the show was all the stewardesses looked the same to me. I had a hard time telling them apart, especially the sisters and the one that came on late as the replacement.


Yeah I had a real hard time with the sisters as well. I think by the very last scene I thought I had it down which was it, but otherwise every time I saw them I was like...what...


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I wonder if the American TV-watching public would even accept high school kids on TV shows who looked like high school kids, after all these years of being indoctrinated into thinking that high school kids should look like college-age magazine models?


Sometimes I wonder about the impact hollywood has on the perviness of society. So often we have people who are playing 16-17 year olds played by people in their early 20s and as a society we are saying, it is wrong for you to covet a 16 year old say when you 29 or 42, but they are not really 16, and do not really look like they are 16. I think one of the reasons on tv, especially, is because teenagers change so much from say 13-20 that it can really mess with continuity. If you have a young looking 19 year old play the character for 5 years the character will look much more similar all the way through.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Another reason is if you have a real kid, there are legal restrictions on what and how much they can do.

Plus it's a lot harder finding a kid who can act, even a little. Years of experience can come in handy!


----------



## bacevedo (Oct 31, 2003)

My wife and I really liked this show. It's different than everything else on TV.

The only issue we had was with the soundtrack mixing. We both had a hard time hearing the dialog over the background music, as it seemed like it was mixed in pretty loud. There were several times where we had to rewind to hear the lines again. Anyone else have any trouble with that?


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Mixed reviews here. My wife loves the show. 
Meh for me. Christina Ricci has never looked good. The Captain especially on the inaugural flight would have been a much older guy, an experienced WWII vet B-17 or such former Captain.
The one accurate thing is that back then the stews were much better looking. Much.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

I thought it was good enough to watch a couple more (haven't seen ep 2 yet).

Need to give it time for character and story development, etc. 

I liked the flashbacks to show how the characters got to where they were.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Unbeliever said:


> I had to grit my teeth at "with you" on the check-in. ...


You had no problem with the readback, "Clipper cleared for takeoff_ on runway 13 Left"_ Do we talk like that?

They might as well do a Sky King, "Coming in for a landing."


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

netringer said:


> You had no problem with the readback, "Clipper cleared for takeoff_ on runway 13 Left"_ Do we talk like that?
> "


Well, the "on" was superfluous, and you forgot the '22' in the callsign but yes, we do use "runway" in our readbacks. Including the runway is important if there are multiple runways in use, especially parallel runways.

Ref AIM 4-3-11(c)(2) AIM 4-4-7 (b)(1) for examples.

Edit, it's been too long for me to remember if he said "thirteen Left" or "one three Left". It's still in my 'recently deleted' folder, I'll check when I get home.

--Carlos V.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Jon J said:


> In the very earliest days, didn't all stewardesses have to be registered nurses...or did I dream that?


It was true in the 1930s because people very often got motion sickness on those Ford Tri-motors and DC-3s, not to mention that some weren't pressurized (cold!) and could have open windows. When they offered you a blanket, you _needed_ it.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

The use of "runway" by ATC is/was common in my experience.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

So....nobody else is interested in talking about this show?

I just watched the third episode and it's definitely growing on me. I like the French gal the best. She inexplicably reminds me of Kaylee. The redhead is interesting too, but at the rate they're going, they're going to have a hard time keeping her alive for the whole season.

Wednesday is a bit over the top, but I liked the reporters she was hobnobbing with.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

It's actually growing on me as well, but not without a few annoyances. I'll probably create a thread for the new episode.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

We haven't watched the third episode yet. My wife was out of town on business last week. I imagine we will watch it tonight.


----------



## Bob_Newhart (Jul 14, 2004)

I haven't watched the third one yet. I think it is so-so so far. A little too soap-operary and I didn't realize it was going to be so geared towards women. I was hoping for more plane action I guess, like some good old fashioned engine trouble and some hijacking. It's all pretty boys and pretty girls looking pretty. I usually zip through the all girl scenes and try to find the parts I'm interested in. Christina Ricci is okay but the blonde is way hotter. Like the french girl too. I was hoping for Love Boat on an aeroplane.


----------



## RandomTask (Jun 30, 2011)

Bob_Newhart said:


> I haven't watched the third one yet. I think it is so-so so far. A little too soap-operary and I didn't realize it was going to be so geared towards women. I was hoping for more plane action I guess, like some good old fashioned engine trouble and some hijacking. It's all pretty boys and pretty girls looking pretty. I usually zip through the all girl scenes and try to find the parts I'm interested in. Christina Ricci is okay but the blonde is way hotter. Like the french girl too. I was hoping for Love Boat on an aeroplane.


In normal aviation, engine problems and hijacking are rare. By comparison, I guess having a stewardess act as a spy is common... ???


----------



## pops_porter (Sep 27, 2005)

RandomTask said:


> In normal aviation, engine problems and hijacking are rare. By comparison, I guess having a stewardess act as a spy is common... ???


I thought the spy thing was a little far fetched until that article that was posted somewhere in this thread that talked to the former pan am flight attendants and they said it was rumored that some were spys.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

kaszeta said:


> 3. I'll have to go into "suspension of disbelief" mode if I'm going to keep watching this, since they don't get a lot of the aviation details right... But hey, this is an ABC drama, not a documentary.
> 
> This has some promise, I'll stay watching for a bit.


I assume the walkway from the terminal to the jet was artistic license?

Because it looked like a pretty heavy duty concrete structure. Pulling a jet up to that looks like a good way to ding up a nice shiny airplane...


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

Jonathan_S said:


> I assume the walkway from the terminal to the jet was artistic license?
> 
> Because it looked like a pretty heavy duty concrete structure. Pulling a jet up to that looks like a good way to ding up a nice shiny airplane...


Look earlier in the thread. That's actually not that unrealistic.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

kaszeta said:


> Look earlier in the thread. That's actually not that unrealistic.


Ah, that picture was just showing as 'Image hosted by Tripod', I had to manually open the url to see it.

Were those old open air jetways fixed, or were they like modern ones which move out to meet the plane after it's parked?

I'd _assume_ that it's harder to manuver the side of a plane against an immobile jetway than to manouver the jetway against the side of a plane. (Although in those days planes were probably routinly tractored in, not driven in by the pilot. So the tractor tug operator probably could see the plane side reasonably well; unlike the view from the cockpit)


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

Jonathan_S said:


> Ah, that picture was just showing as 'Image hosted by Tripod', I had to manually open the url to see it.
> 
> Were those old open air jetways fixed, or were they like modern ones which move out to meet the plane after it's parked?
> 
> I'd _assume_ that it's harder to manuver the side of a plane against an immobile jetway than to manouver the jetway against the side of a plane. (Although in those days planes were probably routinly tractored in, not driven in by the pilot. So the tractor tug operator probably could see the plane side reasonably well; unlike the view from the cockpit)


I'd suspect truly fixed.

Actually, when I was working at PHX as a baggage handler, most of the jetways there (on the infamous Terminal 3 "temporary" wing) were fixed as well (and it just happens that if you set it right, you could use the same height with 737s and A320s, which is what Cactus flew at the time), so it's not that big a deal.


----------



## RandomTask (Jun 30, 2011)

Jonathan_S said:


> Ah, that picture was just showing as 'Image hosted by Tripod', I had to manually open the url to see it.
> 
> Were those old open air jetways fixed, or were they like modern ones which move out to meet the plane after it's parked?
> 
> I'd _assume_ that it's harder to manuver the side of a plane against an immobile jetway than to manouver the jetway against the side of a plane. (Although in those days planes were probably routinly tractored in, not driven in by the pilot. So the tractor tug operator probably could see the plane side reasonably well; unlike the view from the cockpit)


Before jetways, you walked to the tarmac and use the stairs.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

RandomTask said:


> Before jetways, you walked to the tarmac and use the stairs.


And then there was Dulles Airport where the people movers (plane mate mobile lounge) drove you out to the plane and adjusted their height to match the plane door. 

I don't know if IAD went through a pure air-stairs phase before that, but that was definitely pre-jetway. By the time I was flying out of there they just used the people movers to transfer you between terminals. And now they've built a train and don't really need them anymore.









(thank you google image search)


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

Yeah, I remember doing some plane boardings with the mobile lounges, and quite a few inter-terminal transfers.

I don't really miss them.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

yup.. Did that a few times. The people mover direct to the plane. And last time I was at IAD, the people mover to a "remote" terminal. PITA, but not *too* different than having to use a tram to go from a main terminal to another one, like I do at LAS. Or had to do at PIT.


----------



## Tivo_60 (Jun 13, 2003)

We enjoyed it, however, my wife is a retired AA International flight attendant and feels it necessary to point out all the inconsistencies. Hats on inside the cabin a no, no.
Oh look, the ovens are on the wrong side of the wall in the first class galley. (pausing the dvdr with ea comment) But, then again, I did the same thing to her during Top Gun ( former AF pilot)


----------



## Waldorf (Oct 4, 2002)

Tivo_60 said:


> But, then again, I did the same thing to her during Top Gun ( former AF pilot)


Heh my dad is former Navy and his brother is retired Air Force. (Thanksgivings are a real treat! )

They both agreed the one realistic scene was where someone asks, "Oh, you're a pilot?" and he corrects them... "*ahem* Naval Aviator".


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

Tivo_60 said:


> We enjoyed it, however, my wife is a retired AA International flight attendant and feels it necessary to point out all the inconsistencies. Hats on inside the cabin a no, no.
> Oh look, the ovens are on the wrong side of the wall in the first class galley. (pausing the dvdr with ea comment) But, then again, I did the same thing to her during Top Gun ( former AF pilot)


Did either of you notice this error?










--Carlos V.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

the plane is flying backwards. And has the vertical stabilizer above were the pilots sit.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> the plane is flying backwards. And has the vertical stabilizer above were the pilots sit.


Either that or it is upside-down.

--Carlos V.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> the plane is flying backwards. And has the vertical stabilizer above were the pilots sit.





Unbeliever said:


> Either that or it is upside-down.
> 
> --Carlos V.


 Not seeing what you're seeing ...


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

getreal said:


> Not seeing what you're seeing ...


It requires some specialized knowledge.

Oblique hint: Not only will (airplane) pilots see the error, but boaters too. As Jeff's and my comments might indicate, it has something to do with direction.

--Carlos "navigation" V.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Unbeliever said:


> It requires some specialized knowledge.
> 
> Oblique hint: Not only will (airplane) pilots see the error, but boaters too. As Jeff's and my comments might indicate, it has something to do with direction.
> 
> --Carlos "navigation" V.


JUST got it! I try not to be too dense, and now the comments are more amusing knowing that.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> the plane is flying backwards. And has the vertical stabilizer above were the pilots sit.


That was during the cold war mission to Berlin. That is 1960s stealth.

You can't tell which way it's flying.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

getreal said:


> Not seeing what you're seeing ...





Unbeliever said:


> It requires some specialized knowledge.
> 
> Oblique hint: Not only will (airplane) pilots see the error, but boaters too. As Jeff's and my comments might indicate, it has something to do with direction.
> 
> --Carlos "navigation" V.





dianebrat said:


> JUST got it! I try not to be too dense, and now the comments are more amusing knowing that.


Still not seeing it. Teach us, oh wise Master! I can't be the only dense one around here.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

getreal said:


> Still not seeing it. Teach us, oh wise Master! I can't be the only dense one around here.


Red-Right-port.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation_light


----------



## Tivo_60 (Jun 13, 2003)

Unbeliever said:


> Did either of you notice this error?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I must confess, No, we both missed that one.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

As netringer points out, it's the Navigation lights. 

On aircraft, the right wingtip is green, the left is red. The CGI 707 has them reversed.

They also forgot the white rear facing nav light.

--Carlos V.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Wait'll they land on runway 3-9.


----------



## RandomTask (Jun 30, 2011)

netringer said:


> Red-Right-port.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation_light


I thought the nautical version was red right return. Either way, I can't see the position light color well enough to tell the colors.... Damn color discrimination deficiency.


----------



## RandomTask (Jun 30, 2011)

netringer said:


> Wait'll they land on runway 3-9.


Just saw that episode of West Wing the other day. Makes me cringe every time.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

They fixed the nav lights this last episode (Hong Kong), though they severely exaggerated some of the aircraft positions, especially the height above ground 1/4 mile from landing at NYC. 

--Carlos V.


----------



## RandomTask (Jun 30, 2011)

Unbeliever said:


> They fixed the nav lights this last episode (Hong Kong), though they severely exaggerated some of the aircraft positions, especially the height above ground 1/4 mile from landing at NYC.
> 
> --Carlos V.


They compensated by getting the landing at Kai Tak wrong. They talked about the checkerboard but then no big turn and then ended up to the right of the runway not to the left which is the standard problem wind or no wind.


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

netringer said:


> Wait'll they land on runway 3-9.


What's wrong with that?


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

Squeak said:


> What's wrong with that?


Runways are named after compass headings, so they only go from 0-0 to 3-5


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

kaszeta said:


> Runways are named after compass headings, so they only go from 0-0 to 3-5


Umm... Not quite.

1 to 36. (no leading zeros)

--Carlos V.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

Unbeliever said:


> Umm... Not quite.
> 
> 1 to 36. (no leading zeros)
> 
> --Carlos V.


Yeah, I'm surprised I flubbed that one. (But at least I'm not a pilot)


----------



## RandomTask (Jun 30, 2011)

kaszeta said:


> Runways are named after compass headings, so they only go from 0-0 to 3-5


Mostly. There are lots of exceptions.... Usually when they have several parallel runway so one set gets the wrong heading.... ( which I think is a safety problem)....

Most notable is DFW which has 18-36 L&R and 17-35L&R for For the 4 parallel runways. And BTW is handily *36* making Carlos's point nicely.... ;-)


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

RandomTask said:


> Mostly. There are lots of exceptions.... Usually when they have several parallel runway so one set gets the wrong heading.... ( which I think is a safety problem)....
> 
> Most notable is DFW which has 18-36 L&R and 17-35L&R for For the 4 parallel runways. And BTW is handily *36* making Carlos's point nicely.... ;-)


No love for the center?


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Unbeliever said:


> It's a variant of the Dawson Casting trope. Yes, all the characters are supposed to be younger than 28, even though the actresses are older. Ricci is around 31 years old, I think.
> 
> And I apologize in advance for the huge timesink I introduced you to in the form of tvtropes.org.


Heh, I found that a few years ago. Geez, just like Wikipedia, it's a HUGE time sink when one first finds it (and sporadically after then).

I didn't read the one you specifically linked to, but I sure thought the practice was around a lot longer than that.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> I wonder if the American TV-watching public would even accept high school kids on TV shows who looked like high school kids, after all these years of being indoctrinated into thinking that high school kids should look like college-age magazine models?


Well, I have definitely seen people here (including me) ask how old a certain actress is on a show... and some admit to wondering if she's "of age" or not.

BTW, I just watched the pilot over the weekend (have the rest since then recorded), and it was fairly decent. Not GREAT, I think I actually watched it in two parts since I got bored at one point.. but even with that lackluster comment, I didn't give up, like I did after 1 ep of Playboy Club.

As for CGI, was the giant hotel lobby they were in CGI? I was wondering where that set was...


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

marksman said:


> That seems a little old to me for that time period. Especially in the guise of young ladies out there trying to meet a husband. I wonder what age they are supposed to be on the show?


The show itself said they could be stewardesses until they were 32 XOR married.

Yow, weren't there any kind of age discrimination laws then?!


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

mattack said:


> The show itself said they could be stewardesses until they were 32 XOR married.


So, get married on your 32nd birthday, and you can keep your job!


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

mattack said:


> The show itself said they could be stewardesses until they were 32 *XOR* married.


 What does that ("XOR") even mean?


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Exclusive or. One, or the other, but not both.


----------



## RandomTask (Jun 30, 2011)

mattack said:


> The show itself said they could be stewardesses until they were 32 XOR married.
> 
> Yow, weren't there any kind of age discrimination laws then?!





JETarpon said:


> So, get married on your 32nd birthday, and you can keep your job!





getreal said:


> What does that ("XOR") even mean?





JETarpon said:


> Exclusive or. One, or the other, but not both.


Based on the time, if would not have been XOR, it would have been OR. If you hit 32 or got married, you were done. The idea was that they should, be young and appealing to the primarily male business clientele of the time. Wedding bands were a turnoff.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

RandomTask said:


> Based on the time, if would not have been XOR,


Yeah sorry, I realized after I posted that I was thinking about it wrong.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

mattack said:


> Yeah sorry, I realized after I posted that I was thinking about it wrong.


I liked the idea of the single day escape clause, though.


----------

