Found this which explains imthe driving thing quite well
https://www.worldstandards.eu/cars/driving-on-the-left/

flee wrote:

Many aviation SOPs are a carbon copy of maritime SOPs. Ships also mainly dock on the "port side" - this is the left hand side of the ship. For aircraft, it is the same and airports are also set up to handle the aircraft from the left side.

Not always my friend. I was at the Port of Fort Lauderdale this weekend and there were 5 ships in port and 3 were boarding on the starboard side.

TWA772LR wrote:

I heard that Juan Trippe came up with these terms (and the uniform design) for the Pan Am clippers since he served in the Navy and that it just caught on to the rest of the industry. Still a hangover from boats nonetheless!

superjeff wrote:

That's actually the correct answer. Trippe felt that in the early days of barnstorming pilots, an image of stability and safety was necessary. That's why his Clippers (nautical name) were manned by captains, first offices, etc. who were dressed in naval type uniforms (on Pan Am, black double breasted suits and white captains' hats) even back in "the day".

So it all began with Juan Trippe?

Imperial Airways were using flying boats before Juan Trippe's earliest airline endeavours. And before that, the RNAS & USN operated military flying boats, so I suggest the port & starboard terms for this type of aircraft were well established before Trippe. I suspect that these terms were applied to all aircraft types much earlier than that anyway.

As for using the term Captain, other officer terminology, and uniforms; many of the earliest airline pilots would have still referred back to their war service and "Captain" was just one of many ranks amongst civilian pilots. Quite when civilians were "awarded" the term Captain in their own right is questionable, except once again Imperial Airways can show evidence of this practice well before Juan Trippe. Or rather, contemporary newspaper reports invariably identify these individuals as "Captain", for both land planes and flying boats.

e.g. this article has found reports regarding the first 16 Imperial Airways pilots from 1924; 11 of them are clearly identified as "Captain", one other was "stripped" of his rank by the newspaper as it was reporting a misdemeanour ("six months' hard labour for obtaining credit by fraud from a London restaurant"), and the remainder simply failed to set new speed records, or transport Royalty, so never made the news.
Capt Walter George Raymond Hinchliffe

October 1926: "AEROPLANE BLOWN BACKWARDS CAUGHT BY STRONG WIND AND CARRIED FOR MILE. Captain W. G. R Hinchliffe, the Imperial Airways pilot, had the unique experience of travelling backwards through the air yesterday while testing one of the big Rolls-Royce air liners at Croydon Aerodrome. Ascending to a height of 2000 feet, he encountered a head wind so strong that his machine was blown steadily backwards for a distance of over a mile."

Note; the "Rolls-Royce" airliner was most probably a Handley-Page HP.42

Photographs from 1924 tend to show pilots in long leather coats or utilitarian oilskins, for protection against the elements.
But by 1928, Imperial Airways pilots were wearing these rather smart uniforms.

I am not automatically claiming that Imperial Airways are responsible for these innovations; it might have been a French or German airline of that era.
However, whilst Juan Trippe advanced air travel in many ways, I am wary of giving him, or the USA, credit for these things.
http://afleetingpeace.org/index.php/bus ... al-airways

In ancient times, I recall once boarding a Continental Airlines DC-10 from the right side on a charter from Denver to Miami, for the Orange Bowl. The group was a bunch of CU fans, who were on their way, unbeknownst to them, to humiliation at the hands of Ohio State. As an aside the two high points of the trip was getting to ride part way in the cockpit, (Different times) and a person from my dorm who was also there, carrying a sign, referencing Woody Hayes the Ohio State coach, that said "Woody is a Pecker."

Aptivaboy wrote:

I'm a HEMA practitioner (Historical European Martial Arts) and the lore and background of these funny little customs is actually quite interesting. The competitions are also quite awesome, too! You get to fight people! With swords! Okay, gotta calm down... The reason men's suit buttons button to the side that they do versus womens' buttons is a little arcane search unto itself. It is partly to do with fashion, partly to do with having servants dress you and their hands being reversed compared to your's, and partly back to jousting in the way that the armor was fastened on in the case of men.

Mmmm... I heard/read sometime that it's because you can draw a concealed weapon more easily...

Carlos01 wrote:

So, I found with some maritime googling the whole story or port/starboard:
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/port-starboard.html

From there a direct quote (for easier reading):
"In the early days of boating, before ships had rudders on their centerlines, boats were controlled using a steering oar. Most sailors were right handed, so the steering oar was placed over or through the right side of the stern. Sailors began calling the right side the steering side, which soon became "starboard" by combining two Old English words: stéor (meaning "steer") and bord (meaning "the side of a boat").

As the size of boats grew, so did the steering oar, making it much easier to tie a boat up to a dock on the side opposite the oar. This side became known as larboard, or "the loading side." Over time, larboard—too easily confused with starboard—was replaced with port. After all, this was the side that faced the port, allowing supplies to be ported aboard by porters."

Great explanation!

Aptivaboy wrote:

You pass on the left to present your left arm, your shield arm, to your opponent. Back in the old sword and buckler days, that was how it was done, defense being as important as anything else. Jousting occurred the same way, with the left arm holding the shield, and the right the lance, but with the lance pointing over the horse and diagonally towards the opposing rider. In both cases, the travelers would pass left side to left side.

The average merchant or farmer travelling on the road was not wearing a shield, but might have had some weapon available.

You say I'm not correct yet I've been told / read / seen on TV many many times both that a) riding on the left / passing on the right *WAS* the norm all over Europe (despite what you say), and b) it was to defensively draw a sword from a scabbard on your left side with your right hand while holding reins with your left hand. That would leave you weak on your left side and strong on your right!

Your argument works for Napoleon's armies, so I suspect that that might be the rationale behind the later switch to the other side... *NOT* the way it was before.

f4f3a wrote:

Found this which explains imthe driving thing quite well
https://www.worldstandards.eu/cars/driving-on-the-left/

Thanks, that broadly agrees with what I was saying.

Kilo loading, Captain needs to see the passengers in the walkway to the aircraft.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Your argument works for Napoleon's armies, so I suspect that that might be the rationale behind the later switch to the other side...

Thinking about that again, Napoleon's armies were all muskets and cavalry - not a shield in sight - so the shield arm argument doesn't work for them either.

Phosphorus wrote:

Kilopond wrote:

Concerning the navy heritage in aviation: in Russian and some other languages the title of the First Officer is Steersman (штурман from Dutch stuurman).

Incorrect.
"Shturman" is the Navigator. Literally.

But it is almost exactly the same word as the Danish "Styrmand", and the first Russian navy was originally created with help from Denmark. My guess is that the Russians just adopted the Danish word directly. Traditionally, a "Styrmand" would also be responsible for navigating the ship.

I once boarded on the right hand side in FAE (Faroe Islands):

neomax wrote:

In theory, it would be much faster to use both left and right doors, but alas, it never got much traction. That said, MUC is one of the few airports that is configured to allow it for aircraft as large as the A380, as seen below. This setup is most beneficial on twin aisle aircraft as each aisle gets its own jetway. I have yet to see any configurations that utilize both doors on the upper and lower decks, as that would not only board separate aisles, but also separate decks and significantly speed up the boarding process.

While technically possible that was just a test flight to test MUC's ability to handle a diversion. I believe the LH picture was also taken during a publicity flight. I don't believe that gate was ever used for regular A380 operations. Today MUC has proper A380 gates at both T1 and the new T2 satellite concourse. I don't know what other airports besides MUC have that setup. Here in BOS , before we had A380 gates, they would just use a single jetway. I saw that done only once as most diversions did not require the airplane to come to a gate.

VSMUT wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Kilopond wrote:

Concerning the navy heritage in aviation: in Russian and some other languages the title of the First Officer is Steersman (штурман from Dutch stuurman).

Incorrect.
"Shturman" is the Navigator. Literally.

But it is almost exactly the same word as the Danish "Styrmand", and the first Russian navy was originally created with help from Denmark. My guess is that the Russians just adopted the Danish word directly. Traditionally, a "Styrmand" would also be responsible for navigating the ship.

Well, where to start...
Similarities to Danish may or may not coincidental.

First navy of "Russia" (as opposed to earlier East Slavic navies, of places like Novgorod or Archangelsk -- areas that eventually became "Russia") was indeed created, during Peter I time, with foreign help. Primarily from the Netherlands.
Earlier naval traditions were altogether scrapped, and Dutch ones were implanted directly -- with carbon copy of ship designs and building principles (BTW, it was a disaster in Archangelsk, where ice-worthy designs were, by decree, replaced with warm-water ocean-going optimized ones), names of parts of the ships -- including masts, sails, smaller items -- they are all transplanted from Dutch directly.

Same story for job names. Shturman was one of them, and meant Navigator. Peter I, who was a prolific writer of "ukaz"'s (direct law-giving from the emperor), wrote several mentions in these "ukaz", dedicated specifically to Navigators: they were a separate (under-)class among naval officers, and had to be smart in math/sciences -- so unlike other naval officers, who were mainly of noble birth and formed a close upclass (even within nobility), navigators had to be picked for their brains, not for heraldry. Their (generally) low birth is somewhat mocked in these ukaze, but usefulness is mentioned as a reason why they should be afforded same wardroom privileges and pay allowances, as the officers.

The helmsman (I assume that's what Styrmand means) in Russian, from old (pre-Peter I) times would be "Kormchiy" (кормчий) and rather more modern (including Russian Imperial Navy era) would be "Rulevoy" (рулевой).

The average merchant or farmer travelling on the road was not wearing a shield, but might have had some weapon available.

Actually, yes he usually did. Being armed was a legal requirement in most Germanic states, and that would include England at various points in her history. Everyone from the yeoman farmer to the traveling merchant had to be able to defend himself, as well as answer his lord's call to arms when demanded. Indeed, it explains why the messer and grosse messer were so popular on the continent - they were essentially swordlike "long knives" which the common man could afford (knife hilted, though not sword hilted, which meant that the knife making guilds could make them). And remember, the average citizens were often required to arm themselves by law. This varied by jurisdiction but it's essentially accurate for much of Europe, including England. So yes, the average person, certainly in the countryside, was very well armed in England, very well armed, indeed. Most houses of even reasonable size possessed small armories of a few swords, a lance, even perhaps primitive pollaxes. There were no burglar alarms, so the average person had to be able to defend himself and his home, and that would include merchants journeying the roads. It would make no sense to carry a shield and not a sword or axe or mace to go with it. Heck, grappling (medieval wrestling) and to a lesser extent archery were as close to national sports in England as there were. All in all, England was a very martial society in the medieval period in many facets of life.

If you'll peruse I.33, the oldest medieval European fighting manual we have dating from the late 13th century you'll see monks fighting in the pages and ostensibly training young students in the art of sword and buckler combat, something that nearly everyone knew to a degree. One fighter even appears to be a woman, which makes sense given how women accompanied men on campaign and at place like the Welsh and Scottish Marches would need to learn some form of self defense. And again, to make the shield work in defense you must have a weapon in the other hand to use in offense.

So yes, they were very often armed. They had to be, both for their own well being and to answer the legal dictates of the day.

I.33 : http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Walpurgis_Fechtbuch_(MS_I.33)

Phosphorus wrote:

First navy of "Russia" (as opposed to earlier East Slavic navies, of places like Novgorod or Archangelsk -- areas that eventually became "Russia") was indeed created, during Peter I time, with foreign help. Primarily from the Netherlands.

The first ships were built in Russia by Danish shipbuilders, and predated the Russian-Dutch relationship by over 60 years, not to mention that Denmark and what was to become Russia had been allies for more than 200 years before the Dutch joined in

VSMUT wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

First navy of "Russia" (as opposed to earlier East Slavic navies, of places like Novgorod or Archangelsk -- areas that eventually became "Russia") was indeed created, during Peter I time, with foreign help. Primarily from the Netherlands.

The first ships were built in Russia by Danish shipbuilders, and predated the Russian-Dutch relationship by over 60 years, not to mention that Denmark and what was to become Russia had been allies for more than 200 years before the Dutch joined in

That's right, you go ahead and tell a Russian that he doesn't know his own country's history....

Actually he might not be Russian, but a long list of Ilyushin, Tupolev and Yakolev aircraft flown suggests he knows something of those parts.

How about yourself? Perhaps you are both from отчизна ?

Aptivaboy wrote:

The average merchant or farmer travelling on the road was not wearing a shield, but might have had some weapon available.

Actually, yes he usually did. Being armed was a legal requirement in most Germanic states, and that would include England at various points in her history.

Well if you're going to start off that wrong then I can't be bothered with the rest.

Also your entire claim for the other side of the road was based on shields - you are now talking about swords and knives - which back up MY claim for the left hand side of the road!

VSMUT wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

First navy of "Russia" (as opposed to earlier East Slavic navies, of places like Novgorod or Archangelsk -- areas that eventually became "Russia") was indeed created, during Peter I time, with foreign help. Primarily from the Netherlands.

The first ships were built in Russia by Danish shipbuilders, and predated the Russian-Dutch relationship by over 60 years, not to mention that Denmark and what was to become Russia had been allies for more than 200 years before the Dutch joined in

And that relationship was probably with Muscovy, not Novgorod Republic, nor pomors of Archangelsk (actually also a historically Novgorod Republic area), correct?
That's interesting, but honestly, did not really have a chance to leave a lasting footprint.

Because Muscovy was a not a sea-faring nation, until absorbing northern territories of Novgorod Republic -- there they encountered the polar-optimized ship architecture of pomors. Later, when Muscovy gained access to the Caspian sea, they developed an indigenous (and somewhat underappreciated, actually) ship architecture for faring that treacherous and profitable water body.

The fact is that reforms of Peter I have wiped out these (and whatever other already existing local) naval architecture schools. Everything before Peter I was declared incorrect, and the new-born Russian Empire started from a clean slate. Actually, now that you speak of it, my feeling is that Muscovy actually had better stuck with Danish experience in ship-building, for its own good. For example, Danes of all the sea-faring nations of the era (probably even more than the biggest rivals, in the North Europe, Swedes and Poles, as their quarrel was centered in the Baltic) could probably appreciate the need to incorporate design features, allowing sea-going ships to survive in low-salinity environments.
Dutch didn't think in those terms; combined with Peter I'd rush to build a large navy out of freshly cut, unseasoned timbers, this led to a disastrous rotting of these ships in (almost) fresh-water east of the Gulf of Finland.

Aptivaboy wrote:

The average merchant or farmer travelling on the road was not wearing a shield, but might have had some weapon available.

Actually, yes he usually did. Being armed was a legal requirement......
So yes, the average person, certainly in the countryside, was very well armed in England, very well armed, indeed.
There were no burglar alarms, so the average person had to be able to defend himself and his home,

Very well armed indeed? I doubt that. For one thing, the average person...... didn't own anything worth stealing.
Secondly, during their entire life, vast numbers of the population didn't travel more than 10 miles from where they were born. They travelled the same tracks, and met the same people, year after year. Not much call for defensive weapons.
The big travelling event of the week would be going to market, along with your family, and everybody else too. That would be the one time when the roads were "congested", but I don't for one moment believe everybody went prepared for battle.

If you'll peruse I.33, the oldest medieval European fighting manual we have dating from the late 13th century you'll see.... .

I.33 : http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Walpurgis_Fechtbuch_(MS_I.33)

Aptivaboy wrote:

I'm a HEMA practitioner (Historical European Martial Arts)

Whilst I am impressed with your detailed knowledge and enthusiasm for this subject, I cannot help but feel it is akin to discussing guns with a member of the NRA. In their minds, everybody should be trained & prepared, and carry a gun, at all times. The reality is that even the most dedicated gun enthusiast often leaves home un-armed, particularly if he's just popping down to Wal-Mart for a quart of cherry & choc ice cream.
But in 2,000 years time, someone researching historical documents of this era, would come to the same conclusion that you have regarding medieval times; that everybody walked around armed to the hilt. After all, just look at all the reports of gun violence in the news. And endless threads in discussion forums. Not to mention NRA propaganda on YouTube.
It's all smoke, and very little fire.
Likewise the medieval fighting manual you refer to is not going to show Joe Average walking along unarmed.

One might do better examining the variety of weapons (or lack of them) listed in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. Obviously there is the Knight, and the Yeoman, both of whom you might expect to bear arms, but what about the other 20 odd travellers?

Well if you're going to start off that wrong then I can't be bothered with the rest.

Also your entire claim for the other side of the road was based on shields - you are now talking about swords and knives - which back up MY claim for the left hand side of the road!

,

You clearly didn't understand the context of what I wrote. I was responding to your about the average medieval trader not being armed and perhaps only having a shield. My point was that he would have carried more than just a shield. The fact that he may have carried an arming sword does not obviate my earlier point. I was also making the point that the average medieval person was quite well armed, indeed, again in reference to your claim that he would have carried a shield only. Look back at jousting again. The pass on the left aspect is quite noticeable.

That's why i love a.net forums.
We came from modern airliners to english horses and viking boats.
Keep going!

Woodreau wrote:

Kind of like railway track gauge. The reason why the standard track gauge is 4ft 8-1/2inches is because that is the width of a roman chariot, and the width of a roman chariot is because that's how wide the posterior of two horses are.
.

Not quite: https://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp

Starlionblue wrote:

Woodreau wrote:

Kind of like railway track gauge. The reason why the standard track gauge is 4ft 8-1/2inches is because that is the width of a roman chariot, and the width of a roman chariot is because that's how wide the posterior of two horses are.
.

Not quite: https://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp

Not quite? Please explain.

Aptivaboy wrote:

Well if you're going to start off that wrong then I can't be bothered with the rest.

Also your entire claim for the other side of the road was based on shields - you are now talking about swords and knives - which back up MY claim for the left hand side of the road!

,

You clearly didn't understand the context of what I wrote. I was responding to your about the average medieval trader not being armed and perhaps only having a shield. My point was that he would have carried more than just a shield. The fact that he may have carried an arming sword does not obviate my earlier point. I was also making the point that the average medieval person was quite well armed, indeed, again in reference to your claim that he would have carried a shield only. Look back at jousting again. The pass on the left aspect is quite noticeable.

Oh for goodness' sake learn to read! I said he would NOT have a shield and COULD be armed! And none of this has to do with riding a horse while drawing your weapon... which WAS my point and IS relevant.

(and please quote properly so people get notified!)

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

I heard that Juan Trippe came up with these terms (and the uniform design) for the Pan Am clippers since he served in the Navy and that it just caught on to the rest of the industry. Still a hangover from boats nonetheless!

superjeff wrote:

That's actually the correct answer. Trippe felt that in the early days of barnstorming pilots, an image of stability and safety was necessary. That's why his Clippers (nautical name) were manned by captains, first offices, etc. who were dressed in naval type uniforms (on Pan Am, black double breasted suits and white captains' hats) even back in "the day".

So it all began with Juan Trippe?

Imperial Airways were using flying boats before Juan Trippe's earliest airline endeavours. And before that, the RNAS & USN operated military flying boats, so I suggest the port & starboard terms for this type of aircraft were well established before Trippe. I suspect that these terms were applied to all aircraft types much earlier than that anyway.

As for using the term Captain, other officer terminology, and uniforms; many of the earliest airline pilots would have still referred back to their war service and "Captain" was just one of many ranks amongst civilian pilots. Quite when civilians were "awarded" the term Captain in their own right is questionable, except once again Imperial Airways can show evidence of this practice well before Juan Trippe. Or rather, contemporary newspaper reports invariably identify these individuals as "Captain", for both land planes and flying boats.

e.g. this article has found reports regarding the first 16 Imperial Airways pilots from 1924; 11 of them are clearly identified as "Captain", one other was "stripped" of his rank by the newspaper as it was reporting a misdemeanour ("six months' hard labour for obtaining credit by fraud from a London restaurant"), and the remainder simply failed to set new speed records, or transport Royalty, so never made the news.
Capt Walter George Raymond Hinchliffe

October 1926: "AEROPLANE BLOWN BACKWARDS CAUGHT BY STRONG WIND AND CARRIED FOR MILE. Captain W. G. R Hinchliffe, the Imperial Airways pilot, had the unique experience of travelling backwards through the air yesterday while testing one of the big Rolls-Royce air liners at Croydon Aerodrome. Ascending to a height of 2000 feet, he encountered a head wind so strong that his machine was blown steadily backwards for a distance of over a mile."

Note; the "Rolls-Royce" airliner was most probably a Handley-Page HP.42

Photographs from 1924 tend to show pilots in long leather coats or utilitarian oilskins, for protection against the elements.
But by 1928, Imperial Airways pilots were wearing these rather smart uniforms.

I am not automatically claiming that Imperial Airways are responsible for these innovations; it might have been a French or German airline of that era.
However, whilst Juan Trippe advanced air travel in many ways, I am wary of giving him, or the USA, credit for these things.
http://afleetingpeace.org/index.php/bus ... al-airways

Actually, it is true, and there is plenty of verification out there. Even British Airways (successor to Imperial Airways) would acknowledge it. It really was Juan Trippe. Imperial Airways had pilots and co-pilots (even the old pictures of Imperial Airways seaplanes) show the pilots dressed with goggles, etc. Trippe was very much concerned about image and the image of safety. That's why the Pan Am pilots were Captains and First Officers, why their uniforms resembled naval uniforms, and even why they were black suits with gold stripes and white naval style hats.

Woodreau wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

Anyone know why so many helicopters seem to load from starboard?

Because the aircraft commander sits on the right. He has a view of boarding especially when boarding with engines and rotors engaged/turning.

And helicopters have the commander on the right (opposite to planes) allegedly because the USA's first military instructor was left handed.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

So it all began with Juan Trippe?

Photographs from 1924 tend to show pilots in long leather coats or utilitarian oilskins, for protection against the elements.
But by 1928, Imperial Airways pilots were wearing rather smart uniforms.
I am not automatically claiming that Imperial Airways are responsible for these innovations; it might have been a French or German airline of that era.
However, whilst Juan Trippe advanced air travel in many ways, I am wary of automatically giving him, or the USA, credit for these things.

superjeff wrote:

Actually, it is true, and there is plenty of verification out there. Even British Airways (successor to Imperial Airways) would acknowledge it. It really was Juan Trippe. Imperial Airways had pilots and co-pilots (even the old pictures of Imperial Airways seaplanes) show the pilots dressed with goggles, etc. Trippe was very much concerned about image and the image of safety. That's why the Pan Am pilots were Captains and First Officers, why their uniforms resembled naval uniforms, and even why they were black suits with gold stripes and white naval style hats.

I'm reading what you wrote, but without meaning disrespect, it's just fluff.

it is true, and there is plenty of verification out there

Show me.

Even British Airways would acknowledge it

Show me!

Imperial Airways had pilots and co-pilots (even the old pictures of Imperial Airways seaplanes) show the pilots dressed with goggles, etc

See photo above, and remember what I wrote in post #53;
"Photographs from 1924 tend to show pilots in long leather coats or utilitarian oilskins, for protection against the elements"
"But by 1928, Imperial Airways pilots were wearing these rather smart uniforms.
And as TWA772LR acknowledged, Imperial Airways uniform was based on RAF design; Pan Ams on USN designs.
Imperial Airways uniform was dated 1928, and Pan Am...... (I'm still waiting)

That's why the Pan Am pilots were Captains and First Officers, why their uniforms resembled naval uniforms, and....

Yep, we've done this already, and Imperial Airways were first in both departments. And it's not as if they were a two-bit outfit.
Juan Trippe either copied Imperial Airways, or he came up with the same idea himself, after Imperial Airways.

I have provided evidence and dates. It's a simple challenge for you to prove me wrong, with evidence and dates. Fluff isn't nearly good enough.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Woodreau wrote:

Kind of like railway track gauge. The reason why the standard track gauge is 4ft 8-1/2inches is because that is the width of a roman chariot, and the width of a roman chariot is because that's how wide the posterior of two horses are.
.

Not quite: https://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp

Not quite? Please explain.

I provided a link to the explanation.

Starlionblue wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Not quite: https://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp

Not quite? Please explain.

I provided a link to the explanation.

Thanks; I've already viewed the link, and I believe you are mistaken.
This will explain why.
https://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Not quite? Please explain.

I provided a link to the explanation.

Thanks; I've already viewed the link, and I believe you are mistaken.
This will explain why.
https://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp

That is the exact link I provided.... What is your point?

Starlionblue wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

I provided a link to the explanation.

Thanks; I've already viewed the link, and I believe you are mistaken.
This will explain why.
https://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp

That is the exact link I provided.... What is your point?

Ah! You noticed.
Frustrating isn't it?
My point was that you provided a link with no explanation. Twice.

In itself, that would have been ok if the link easily, simply, categorically backed up your (very) brief comment.
I've read the link, and the link doesn't satisfy any of those conditions.
Maybe I've missed something?
Please help me (& anyone else) by offering some words of explanation.

i.e. what was your point?

A poster stated that rail gauge is due to old Roman horses....a link was then posted in response that went into pretty specific detail regarding how that isn't true. I'm not sure what point there is to get beyond that....

To revisit the original question, I've heard a few theories from pilots. One is that early aircraft with big radial engines would pull in the direction they spun, which was usually left, thus it was easier for the captain to be on the left side and notice the pull. As a result, passengers would board from the captain's side so he could keep an eye on them.

Another I've heard is that because more people are right handed, the captain wanted the left seat so he could more effectively use his dominant hand to manage the cockpit while his left hand could be on the stick.

There's any of a number of reasons why, and I'm sure every possible explanation has a further explanation hidden within, with roundabout logic as well..(Example...why did sea planes dock on the left? Because the capt sat on the left. Why did he sit on the left? Because they docked to the left etc etc)


Simple fact is now every major airport is designed to handle boarding from the left side with very few exceptions, so we're stuck with it.

It was my understanding because the Left hand doors are referred to as “passenger doors” and the ones on the right are referred to as “service doors” or at least that is how it’s been at my current and previous airlines

Lufthansa wrote:

Ships have for a long time boarded from that side, though of course not exclusively.

Initially you had a side rudder on the Starboard side
you wouldn't want to mangle that when going alongside.
Then Starboard is the captains side

From that detail a range of other infrastructure arrangements resulted.
( like you still have servicing, cooking ... rooms and pathways on the port side
and the guest quarters and passageways on the starboard side. ( all for ships.)

Well I'm sure this is just a one off , but back in the good ole days, American Airlines boarded their Convair 240/340 and DC3 for the Starboard side. Must have been an option then?

Few other possibilities:
https://itsolutionindia.wordpress.com/2016/06/29/ever-wondered-why-we-always-enter-and-exit-from-left-side-of-an-airplane/

I love the "port and starboard" concept. Consider something practical as well- often aircraft are designed with cargo doors, fuel and various other service panels aircraft right. You can have multiple ground service equipment items on a flight on the right, while the jet bridge is "loading" passengers aircraft left. It's safer for passengers, but there's also more space! Many private jets are designed like this was as well. Next time you're waiting for a flight at a hub, take a quick look. (Yeah, we do that anyway.) It's pretty neat to think about how many attachments/ vehicles can be dedicated supporting an aircraft on the ground... all at once.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

So it all began with Juan Trippe?

Photographs from 1924 tend to show pilots in long leather coats or utilitarian oilskins, for protection against the elements.
But by 1928, Imperial Airways pilots were wearing rather smart uniforms.
I am not automatically claiming that Imperial Airways are responsible for these innovations; it might have been a French or German airline of that era.
However, whilst Juan Trippe advanced air travel in many ways, I am wary of automatically giving him, or the USA, credit for these things.

superjeff wrote:

Actually, it is true, and there is plenty of verification out there. Even British Airways (successor to Imperial Airways) would acknowledge it. It really was Juan Trippe. Imperial Airways had pilots and co-pilots (even the old pictures of Imperial Airways seaplanes) show the pilots dressed with goggles, etc. Trippe was very much concerned about image and the image of safety. That's why the Pan Am pilots were Captains and First Officers, why their uniforms resembled naval uniforms, and even why they were black suits with gold stripes and white naval style hats.

I'm reading what you wrote, but without meaning disrespect, it's just fluff.

it is true, and there is plenty of verification out there

Show me.

Even British Airways would acknowledge it

Show me!

Imperial Airways had pilots and co-pilots (even the old pictures of Imperial Airways seaplanes) show the pilots dressed with goggles, etc

See photo above, and remember what I wrote in post #53;
"Photographs from 1924 tend to show pilots in long leather coats or utilitarian oilskins, for protection against the elements"
"But by 1928, Imperial Airways pilots were wearing these rather smart uniforms.
And as TWA772LR acknowledged, Imperial Airways uniform was based on RAF design; Pan Ams on USN designs.
Imperial Airways uniform was dated 1928, and Pan Am...... (I'm still waiting)

That's why the Pan Am pilots were Captains and First Officers, why their uniforms resembled naval uniforms, and....

Yep, we've done this already, and Imperial Airways were first in both departments. And it's not as if they were a two-bit outfit.
Juan Trippe either copied Imperial Airways, or he came up with the same idea himself, after Imperial Airways.

I have provided evidence and dates. It's a simple challenge for you to prove me wrong, with evidence and dates. Fluff isn't nearly good enough.

I'll give you that Imperial Airways was one of the first airlines out there, and I'll give you that they had their share of firsts (the British did, after all, have an expansive empire which required air service). And I will give you that the British tend to be (today) more "formal" than the Americans, but. . .

I don't think my comments are fluff. Pan Am is probably one of the first long haul airlines, and Juan Trippe was one of the pioneers, at a time when air travel was neither commonplace nor considered safe. And Pan Am was never government owned, so he had to finance the operation on his own. Pan Am and Imperial Airways (later BOAC) were always rivals on what is probably, even today, the biggest international route in history, London-New York.

I first flew Pan Am in 1954, so I wasn't around in the 1920's, and I never flew Imperial Airways as by the time I came around, they were BOAC, and I didn't have a chance to fly them until the 747 era, in 1976. I can tell you that from my perspective, having flown both, other than the different accent, they were pretty similar.

As a lowly civilian, I think I can now finally remember which side is port and which side is starboard! Fore and Aft were relatively easy but port / starboard...

But now for my humble request: with all due respect to history, why do flight crews still make announcements to passengers with terms like fore and aft?? Can we just move on to left, right, front, and back please?

Also, if we're going to respect history, any way we can get aisles in modern airplanes to be wide enough to fit two horses' asses? (I'm willing to compromise to one human behind but no less )

When I first began flying, we (AA) boarded our 747s and DC-10s from both left hand and right hand doors at certain airports like JFK and LAX. Other airlines around the world also did the same, based on airport terminal configurations. Notable were the Pan Am JFK Worldport and the TWA terminal at JFK, specifically Flight Wing One. I don't believe Flight Wing Two offered right hand side boarding at any gate.