Andrew Wheeler is helping Make America Great Again by bringing back those glory days when rivers routinely caught fire.
And your actual evidence of this is?
Why do the politicos always pitch a fit about an appointee, even before they have a chance to do anything good or bad? Isn't it a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy to call some guy nasty names and accuse him of atrocities then complain he won't talk to you?
I think so too, but I seriously doubt we'd be able to make the case to amend the constitution. I actually think making a senate seat a state wide election was a HUGE mistake and we've only started to see the problems it's causing us. The lobbying cash and having expensive elections ever 6 years for every seat has made the whole process one of "follow the money" if you can.
"He had no direct evidence or knowledge of any Russian collusion during the campaign and said so under questioning yesterday." - Wrong, his testimony IS evidence. He said Jr. told Trump about that meeting beforehand.
Which is.... hearsay, and thus inadmissible as actual evidence... You cannot testify to what you *think* somebody else said to somebody else, especially when that somebody is available to testify as to what was said. ALSO... IF you are talking about the "Trump Tower Meeting" during the campaign, it is FAR from established that anything unseemly or unethical took place at that meeting, in fact, everybody who was at that meeting says that the topic being discussed was some obscure adoption rules and had nothing to do with coordinating electioneering activities. But don't let the lack of actual evidence dissuade you from believing something else happened.
When he was questioned about "Russian Collusion" Cohen says the following... Transcript excerpt follows from NBC none the less...
Was there collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia?
"Questions have been raised about whether I know of direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I do not. I want to be clear. But, I have my suspicions," Cohen said.
Suspicions are not "direct evidence" so Cohen knows nothing of importance about this subject.
I'm making no judgment here about what Trump may or may not be guilty of, I'm just pointing out that Cohen doesn't have any direct evidence of Russian collusion to share with us. That Cohen suspects something he cannot prove may mean something to you, but to a court of law, it's meaningless.
Actually, Cohen said exactly the opposite. He had no direct evidence or knowledge of any Russian collusion during the campaign and said so under questioning yesterday.
Cohen said a lot of nasty things about Trump, but on that specific point he clearly has no direct evidence to provide. If he had, I doubt he'd be heading to jail right now, but would have been charged by Mueller and given a immunity deal for his testimony.
Measles still has a mortality of 1 in 10k, with 1 in 1k suffering permanent severe effects. And unfortunately I'm not old enough to get vaccinated back when I was a kid, so I went through the whole MMR routine. I survived, as you can see. But I wouldn't wish the experience on anyone. Even if there wasn't a fairly high chance of lasting effects, it's something you should protect your kids from if you can.
Do anti-vaxxers hate their kids that much that they want them to get sick?
Well.... I'm going to be fair and say they are motivated to keep their kids from harm, but the Anti Vaxxers are woefully informed about the *actual* risks and are falling prey to the religious zealot like cult of anti-vaccines.
Most are woefully informed even about their own arguments and are caught up in the emotional content of all the sob story anecdotal evidence (both real and just imagined) about how some kid got the MMR vaccine and then got diagnosed with Autism or dies from SIDS. Where the stories may be sometimes true, the cause and effect relationship is NOT supported by actual scientific research. Where I feel for these parents, who believe their agreeing to getting their kid vaccinated caused such harm, and are swimming in both grief and guilt, I DON'T understand how they can be so resistant to the facts.
How the vile hucksters of the human race can prey on these hapless grieving parents defies my comprehension. I think those that push such garbage should be roundly condemned for the harm they are causing and I wish there was some way to make it illegal to make unfounded medical claims without some kind of recourse, either by authorities or by those who fall victim to their deception.
I've argued with the Anti-Vaxx militants, they are seriously long on opinion and very short on knowledge and caring about anybody including their own children.
Measles is a SERIOUS illness for babies not yet born or to young to be vaccinated. It may not be as serious as it used to be, when it killed 1 in 10K or so, but it can still kill. It still causes serious illness, high fevers, and sends kids to the hospital with frightening frequency. It is VERY easy to transmit and extremely hard to avoid exposure for the unvaccinated.
The problem here is that the Anti-Vaxx lobby have a whole host of "The MMR vaccine causes X" statements which are absolute hogwash. I've heard it causes autism, SIDS and all sorts of childhood illnesses. NONE of these theories are borne out in the scientific studies, none. Yet they keep pushing them, scaring the young impressionable parent who think they are doing right by their kids by refusing the vaccines in their religious like fervor.
The MMR vaccine is highly effective if administered as directed. It is also safe, compared to the alternative.
What's missing here is that most parents don't have any experience with any of these nasty childhood illnesses. The vaccines have been so very effective that nobody remembers what polio was or how unpleasant Measles really is for children. They have no idea what they are avoiding, so the minimal risks associated with the vaccine look huge in comparison.
I wonder if the whole anti-vaxx thing would die on the vine if some illness like Measles was running rampant, kids where routinely getting seriously ill, some where hospitalized and even a few died? I think it would and quick. The Anti-Vaxx Zealots would be relegated to the tin-foil hat conspiracy level and laughed at like the flat earth folks, because THAT's exactly what they really are.
Natural compensation methods happen on a geological timescale. If we were releasing this CO2 over a million-year period, it wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem. Releasing it over a century is a problem.
And we know this to be true how?
I have a feeling that the earth has a lot more capacity to adapt than many give it credit for. I'm not saying we pollute recklessly, but I'm also not for committing economic suicide to try and avoid something we don't unilaterally have the ability to avoid anyway. We'd be better off working to deal with the consequences at this point and focus on mitigating those risks as it's actually something we CAN actually do.
I say we prepare for the inevitable and forget trying to prevent it. That ship has sailed, though I'm not sure it was ever in port anyway.
I think you are gravely overestimating the accuracy of the simulation models as they move into the future. I think you also are making assumptions about what I actually think.
My personal opinion (and I'm not a climate scientist, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night so I make no claim to any authority) I think the climate IS changing, things are getting warmer. This is partially due to CO2 emissions, and party just the natural cycling of the planet's climate. We can argue the proportions of what's causing warming, but to me it's a pointless debate. What IS important though is the discussions about what, if anything, we should DO about this.
At this point, we likely part company. I think the climate change lobby are NUTS in a full blown religious sort of way. We may be heading towards a different climate, by our own hands, but some of the proposed solutions I've heard proposed, even in the main stream, are absolute lunacy, both practically, environmentally and economically. There is absolutely no way we can justify the near total destruction of our economy and the violence, death and pestilence which would come to the world's people, yet that's what is being suggested and pushed as the responsible "greed" way. I think we'd be better off foregoing the self inflicted pain and deal with whatever climate change decides to dish out, because up to this point, the dire predictions of the past have been proven wildly wrong.
Past performance doesn't guarantee future performance, but it can give you a pretty good idea what is possible. In this case, the global warming/climate change alarmist bent is alive and well. I strongly suspect they are being as ridiculously dire as they always have, if not more, and I'm unwilling to agree to basically commit "Harry Carry" on the alter of climate change.
LOL.. Anybody figuring out how this will affect the plants of the world when they have an easier time finding carbon to fix? I think your point is valid, CO2 isn't getting that high as there are way to many things which will compensate, long before we get there.
The problem here is that studies like this are based on *simulations* not observations of repeatable experiments. What we have here is a set of theories, which really cannot be proven beyond doubt.
If we are being honest here, climate change science is, at best, an educated guessing game, not a proven beyond a doubt set of scientific laws, and specifically I mean "man made climate change." The critics of this science have some valid points. Past high profile predictions of our demise from climate change have been wildly over blown, there seems to be a bias towards "making news" in order to get research grants, and little attention is paid to the views of those who disagree with the consensus.
You may not agree with them, but there are some valid objections being raised, objections that simply cannot be dismissed with a wave of the hand or by calling folks stupid.
Simulations have serious limits. It's nearly impossible to prove your models are good enough and your initial starting data resolution is accurate enough to give you reasonably good approximations of the future, even more so as your time frames move further and further out. To put it bluntly, climate simulations are less and less useful the longer you run the simulation into the future. Any fanciful claims made about the far reaches of a simulation, where the precision of the simulated results starts to get very poor, should be generally ignored. But we are slumming for funding here, so they fire off the press release...
Pay close attention to the conclusions in the PDF where it clearly indicates that ATC conversations are a hindrance to task management, not a help, and clearly justifies my reluctance to engage them in conversation when struggling to come to terms with how to keep my aircraft safe.
Again, I'm no great pilot, never claimed to be one, in fact I'm a pretty poor one having very little experience. The guys in that Boeing went from about 7,000 Feet to the ground in less than two min. They had their hands full of airplane. The publicly available flight data shows a rapid descent with a pretty healthy heading change to the right. They didn't have TIME to communicate and if you where in the cockpit you'd not either. This wasn't some gentle lazy maneuver as they lost control this was a sudden change into unusual attitude which I'm sure they where struggling to correct, while trying diagnose the reasons it was happening. 120 to 180 seconds is all they apparently had, and it wasn't enough. And you think they should have had time to get out a mayday call or two? Then there is my original point, that they MAY have tried, but on a congested approach frequency in an unusual attitude it may be nobody heard them. So there are many reasons other than a major structural or even electrical failure to account for the lack of a mayday call.
But at this point, we are both guessing. So Call me back when the NTSB publishes their final report and you where right... Until then, I'm done debating basic pilot training with you.
Like I said.. The FIRST thing you do is fly. Communicating is way down the priority list.
This event happened quickly, they went from a normal descent into a +6000 FPS one in really short order and watching their heading changes tells me they stalled and spun. The lack of communication isn't an indicator of a structural failure, when you find yourself in a dire situation your first job is to recover the aircraft, diagnose enough of the problem to keep from balling it up. That job does not include mashing the PPT button and saying something lucid to the controller.
My flight instructor was right. The controllers are going to get chatty, soaking up your limited concentration, once you talk to them. It's what they are trained to do. One time I had a minor incident where the flaps on my 150 stuck full down during touch and goes. Climb performance was crap (less than 100fpm) so after I cleared the tree tops, I got on the radio and told the controller (and the traffic around the airport) that I was going to need a really LONG climb out but that I was staying in the pattern and needed to return as soon as I could. Even though I didn't declare the emergency, I got the 20 questions anyway, which was fine, I had plenty of time to answer them as I was climbing up to pattern height and didn't have much to do for about 5 min. I probably should have made the "pan pan" call but hey, I had a positive rate of climb....
There is no need to communicate with ATC until you have the aircraft under some semblance of control. Fly the plane first. Now as soon as you can take a breath and ATC can be helpful with emergency clearances and radar vectors, by all means, get on the radio. But if you are in the midst of a stall spin recovery with your hands on the throttles and yoke struggling for control, don't bother with the radio.
Just a guess, but I'll bet the load master gets paid a lot more than the folks packing boxes at the warehouse. Such work requires you to be properly trained, certified and managed and the FAA is going to be making sure of that. Also, Amazon likely isn't the load master's employer anyway, the airline likely is. Amazon likely just provides packed containers to the airline who is responsible for weighing and loading them onto the aircraft properly.
I am a pilot... If the pilots had been in a working cockpit, there would have been at least a broken transmission.
No you are not a pilot.. I'm only a private pilot with about 100 hours experience and even I know better than this.
One of the first things my instructor taught me about emergencies is that you follow this list. 1. Aviate (you fly the aircraft first). 2. Navigate (You keep track of where you are second). 3. Communicate - (Comes last). IF you where a pilot, you'd know that list because you would have practiced that list. When you are dealing with an emergency, the LAST thing you want to do is talk to somebody on the ground who's not able to help you and only has questions for you (How much fuel do you have? How many people on board? Hazardous Cargo? What are your intentions? What's the nature of your emergency?). If you are struggling for control of the aircraft, you don't have time to play 20 questions with ATC. Fly the plane first as your life depends on being successful doing that, if you can sort things out enough to catch your breath, THEN you can talk to ATC and let them know.
So given the apparent situation, the pilots where working on #1 and didn't have time for the rest.
Structural damage is possible, thunderstorms where in the area, however, we don't hear any of the eye witnesses reporting anything but a fully assembled aircraft crashing.
It's possible they partially removed the tail though excessive control inputs during an upset recovery, or at least did enough damage to make the tail stop working. However, if the aircraft was fully assembled, this doesn't seem likely. Also, structural damage isn't common on approach as the aircraft is slowing down, approaching V(sub0) where any full control input won't damage the aircraft anyway, so structural damage on approach from over-stress isn't as likely as on departure.,
My guess is weight and balance. It seems to explain the fast uncontrolled descent and given this was a cargo flight, it's likely they where operating near the maximum weight limits. The question I have is did he cargo get shifted during flight or was it loaded wrong before the flight. IF the aircraft was in an AFT CG condition, as you slow down, it want's to pitch up and once you reach the speed where the airflow over the horizontal stabilizer isn't enough to push the nose down, your go nose up, which slows you down and quickly puts you into a stall, even with the yoke fully forward. The pilots become passengers at this point, as you cannot control an aircraft that's stalled and unless you have a lot of altitude and a whole lot of luck you won't recover.
this is horrible and my thoughts go out to the pilots and the families of the pilots
my *guess* is that ntsb is going to discover a miscalculation of weight and balance vis a vis fuel burn that rendered the airframe no longer flyable
My guess is weight and balance, but that it changed during flight due to shifting cargo (or less likely was loaded wrong). At least that's my leading theory. For some reason some cargo broke loose or wasn't properly restrained and though the turbulence they where having moved. Then as they where slowing down for landing they lost pitch control. They either stalled it (my guess) and couldn't recover due to an aft CG shift outside of the controllable limits, or couldn't bring the nose up with the gear and flaps down (though less likely).
So, aft CG was out of controllable limits, pitch control authority wasn't enough to trim the aircraft for slow speeds in that weight and balance condition. A non-recoverable stall happens, the pilots become mere passengers and the aircraft falls out of the sky. I would have expected some radio calls, but as congested as the approach frequency is nobody may have heard them anyway.
The NTSB will know pretty quick. All this will be apparent from the CVR and Data recorder if it happened. Of course the NTSB will be very detailed and systematically put everything back together to fully understand what happened and why, but they will know within days what generally happened.
By media reports, there were at least 5 eyewitnesses to the events leading up to the crash. The eyewitnesses report that the plane appeared to be having mechanical troubles with the pilot fighting for control.
That's unreliable info, but if true it would point towards a maintenance or mechanical problem with the plane, rather than pilot error. (Many crashes are caused by pilot error, so that's not unheard of).
Gotta be horrifying for the crew, to be powerless.
Actually, in this case it looks to me like a weight and balance issue. Of course, anything that happens when you are low and slow can cause you to ball it up pretty quick and not have any warning. Weight and balance could make it impossible to control the aircraft's attitude and only become apparent as the aircraft slows down for it's approach.
So, my leading theory is that the load wasn't properly secured and shifted though the turbulence they where experiencing or during takeoff. Then as they where slowing down for the approach they couldn't keep the aircraft in trim and control the attitude. They either stalled and couldn't recover or couldn't keep the noise up as they where adding flaps and putting the gear down which involves some pretty big trim changes.
Another possible issue is a micro-burst. It was very windy and thunderstorms where around but they where way above the critical altitude to allow recovery and pilots are highly trained for recovery from any hint of this these days. They didn't seem to be low enough for this to have killed them.
It could be pilot error, but when you are an ATP rated pilot flying this kind of aircraft, even in the right seat, you have a lot of experience. It is unlikely you are going to ball it up w/o somebody in the cockpit catching your mistake. Pilot mistakes do happen, but that's why there are two and why one flies while the other monitors these days. I put pilot error at #2 on my list for this crash.
For pilot error, the most likely mode here is an "over stress" of the aircraft. They where in rough weather, it was very bumpy, and it's easy to apply too much control pressure and structurally damage the aircraft. Such damage can break your ability to control the aircraft. The most dangerous thing that's happened is pilots who applied too much rudder and the tail departs the aircraft as a result. In this case, it seems the aircraft was not missing it's tail, so I don't think this happened, though it's possible that mechanical damage got done, rendering the tail useless.
Mechanical issues are on the very bottom of my list of possible causes. It's possible something went wrong with the horizontal stabilizer and, like the weight and balance problem, they lost pitch control at the exact wrong time, but due to the huge safety issues with this part of the aircraft, there are backups of backups for controlling this. It's possible, but unlikely unless there are serious maintenance problems with the airline and the FAA's inspectors are asleep on the job.
So, mechanical issues are about the last thing on the possible list that I would investigate. My list goes, weight and balance, pilot error, weather, aircraft system failure (maintenance).
However, the NTSB will look at everything. They likely have the flight data recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder already recovered and are in the process of dumping the data now. My guess is they will pretty quickly know what caused this one. We have the complete aircraft and the black boxes. There is unlikely to be much question as to what exactly happened.
The Mythical Man Month is a MUST READ for anybody who is or manages any kind of software development staff (Really, any kind of engineering staff). Fredrick Brooks remains spot on in his observations of how software development processes and teams actually work in real life. This book was written back in the 60's, revised in the 70's but remains applicable to modern projects. Brooks is exceedingly insightful and his observations which boil down the real issues of software development still apply decades later. He may have worked on what's now considered antiques using languages which have fallen out of fashion long ago, but his focus on the practicalities of software development makes this book timeless.
Yea, it's not a "programming" book per say, but if you develop software using a team, or do any kind of engineering work with others, the insights in this book are invaluable to you and your management. I read this book every few years and share it with my management when appropriate.
I can tell you don't sell technology to the retail market... Best a product producer can hope for is a bullet proof firmware update process these days... Working out of the box? We ain't got no time for that kind of testing.
The Prius battery is right at about 200V and most electronic things in your house (your TV, your computer and such) work on DC just fine. Those things that don't include electric motors or things that use old power transformer based power supplies instead of switching versions.
An ham radio operator published his experiences in using his daughter's Prius as a backup power source. He was able to power pretty much everything in his house that used a switching mode power supply without any issues directly from the battery. He expressed his delight in having a backup power supply that included the ability to recharge itself using the fossil fueled motor, far in excess of the capacity he could buy for the same price, yet use it to drive to work and back when he didn't need the emergency power.
Some things obviously don't work, most notably was all those wall warts, but his 12V DC generating switching power supply and some RV appliances and lighting pretty much filled any gaps.
People aren't going on Pintrest to search for vaccines to learn and make a reasoned argument. The problem is they find it organically and get sucked in.
If people wanted to search for information, they would use Google.
Problem is, even on Google you are going to get pointed to some misleading materials on vaccines. This strange mixture of sometime science and conspiracy theory that the anti-vax folks peddle is quite invasive and far reaching. There is just enough truth mixed in with their confirmation bias based opinion to persuade a lot of folks and show up on a lot of pages returned by Google.
I think this whole anti-vaccine mess is emblematic of the nature of facts and opinion in today's internet driven age, where objectivity is scorned and subjective truth rules. What is it about humans that makes us so unreasonable these days? What is it about the internet that seems to foster confirmation bias and subjective "truth" that is nothing more than misinformation and half truths? Trust me, the same issue is alive an well in political discussions too. The Anti-Vaxers might be an easy target, but the problem is bigger than just this one issue.
Long gone are the days when actual facts where not in dispute and sources of information where vetted before being considered credible. I miss those days.
Slashdot Mirror
Andrew Wheeler is helping Make America Great Again by bringing back those glory days when rivers routinely caught fire.
And your actual evidence of this is?
Why do the politicos always pitch a fit about an appointee, even before they have a chance to do anything good or bad? Isn't it a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy to call some guy nasty names and accuse him of atrocities then complain he won't talk to you?
as in "Pb"
Nope, as in Pitcher OK. (If you don't know, Look it up..)
I think so too, but I seriously doubt we'd be able to make the case to amend the constitution. I actually think making a senate seat a state wide election was a HUGE mistake and we've only started to see the problems it's causing us. The lobbying cash and having expensive elections ever 6 years for every seat has made the whole process one of "follow the money" if you can.
"They can be voted out."
Tell that to the people of North Carolina and Wisconsin.
Why? Did something other than the election results decide who got sent to the Senate from those states? You got proof of that I suppose?
"He had no direct evidence or knowledge of any Russian collusion during the campaign and said so under questioning yesterday." - Wrong, his testimony IS evidence. He said Jr. told Trump about that meeting beforehand.
Which is .... hearsay, and thus inadmissible as actual evidence... You cannot testify to what you *think* somebody else said to somebody else, especially when that somebody is available to testify as to what was said. ALSO... IF you are talking about the "Trump Tower Meeting" during the campaign, it is FAR from established that anything unseemly or unethical took place at that meeting, in fact, everybody who was at that meeting says that the topic being discussed was some obscure adoption rules and had nothing to do with coordinating electioneering activities. But don't let the lack of actual evidence dissuade you from believing something else happened.
When he was questioned about "Russian Collusion" Cohen says the following... Transcript excerpt follows from NBC none the less...
Was there collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia?
"Questions have been raised about whether I know of direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I do not. I want to be clear. But, I have my suspicions," Cohen said.
Suspicions are not "direct evidence" so Cohen knows nothing of importance about this subject.
I'm making no judgment here about what Trump may or may not be guilty of, I'm just pointing out that Cohen doesn't have any direct evidence of Russian collusion to share with us. That Cohen suspects something he cannot prove may mean something to you, but to a court of law, it's meaningless.
Actually, Cohen said exactly the opposite. He had no direct evidence or knowledge of any Russian collusion during the campaign and said so under questioning yesterday.
Cohen said a lot of nasty things about Trump, but on that specific point he clearly has no direct evidence to provide. If he had, I doubt he'd be heading to jail right now, but would have been charged by Mueller and given a immunity deal for his testimony.
Measles still has a mortality of 1 in 10k, with 1 in 1k suffering permanent severe effects. And unfortunately I'm not old enough to get vaccinated back when I was a kid, so I went through the whole MMR routine. I survived, as you can see. But I wouldn't wish the experience on anyone. Even if there wasn't a fairly high chance of lasting effects, it's something you should protect your kids from if you can.
Do anti-vaxxers hate their kids that much that they want them to get sick?
Well.... I'm going to be fair and say they are motivated to keep their kids from harm, but the Anti Vaxxers are woefully informed about the *actual* risks and are falling prey to the religious zealot like cult of anti-vaccines.
Most are woefully informed even about their own arguments and are caught up in the emotional content of all the sob story anecdotal evidence (both real and just imagined) about how some kid got the MMR vaccine and then got diagnosed with Autism or dies from SIDS. Where the stories may be sometimes true, the cause and effect relationship is NOT supported by actual scientific research. Where I feel for these parents, who believe their agreeing to getting their kid vaccinated caused such harm, and are swimming in both grief and guilt, I DON'T understand how they can be so resistant to the facts.
How the vile hucksters of the human race can prey on these hapless grieving parents defies my comprehension. I think those that push such garbage should be roundly condemned for the harm they are causing and I wish there was some way to make it illegal to make unfounded medical claims without some kind of recourse, either by authorities or by those who fall victim to their deception.
THIS!
I've argued with the Anti-Vaxx militants, they are seriously long on opinion and very short on knowledge and caring about anybody including their own children.
Measles is a SERIOUS illness for babies not yet born or to young to be vaccinated. It may not be as serious as it used to be, when it killed 1 in 10K or so, but it can still kill. It still causes serious illness, high fevers, and sends kids to the hospital with frightening frequency. It is VERY easy to transmit and extremely hard to avoid exposure for the unvaccinated.
The problem here is that the Anti-Vaxx lobby have a whole host of "The MMR vaccine causes X" statements which are absolute hogwash. I've heard it causes autism, SIDS and all sorts of childhood illnesses. NONE of these theories are borne out in the scientific studies, none. Yet they keep pushing them, scaring the young impressionable parent who think they are doing right by their kids by refusing the vaccines in their religious like fervor.
The MMR vaccine is highly effective if administered as directed. It is also safe, compared to the alternative.
What's missing here is that most parents don't have any experience with any of these nasty childhood illnesses. The vaccines have been so very effective that nobody remembers what polio was or how unpleasant Measles really is for children. They have no idea what they are avoiding, so the minimal risks associated with the vaccine look huge in comparison.
I wonder if the whole anti-vaxx thing would die on the vine if some illness like Measles was running rampant, kids where routinely getting seriously ill, some where hospitalized and even a few died? I think it would and quick. The Anti-Vaxx Zealots would be relegated to the tin-foil hat conspiracy level and laughed at like the flat earth folks, because THAT's exactly what they really are.
Natural compensation methods happen on a geological timescale. If we were releasing this CO2 over a million-year period, it wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem. Releasing it over a century is a problem.
And we know this to be true how?
I have a feeling that the earth has a lot more capacity to adapt than many give it credit for. I'm not saying we pollute recklessly, but I'm also not for committing economic suicide to try and avoid something we don't unilaterally have the ability to avoid anyway. We'd be better off working to deal with the consequences at this point and focus on mitigating those risks as it's actually something we CAN actually do.
I say we prepare for the inevitable and forget trying to prevent it. That ship has sailed, though I'm not sure it was ever in port anyway.
I think you are gravely overestimating the accuracy of the simulation models as they move into the future. I think you also are making assumptions about what I actually think.
My personal opinion (and I'm not a climate scientist, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night so I make no claim to any authority) I think the climate IS changing, things are getting warmer. This is partially due to CO2 emissions, and party just the natural cycling of the planet's climate. We can argue the proportions of what's causing warming, but to me it's a pointless debate. What IS important though is the discussions about what, if anything, we should DO about this.
At this point, we likely part company. I think the climate change lobby are NUTS in a full blown religious sort of way. We may be heading towards a different climate, by our own hands, but some of the proposed solutions I've heard proposed, even in the main stream, are absolute lunacy, both practically, environmentally and economically. There is absolutely no way we can justify the near total destruction of our economy and the violence, death and pestilence which would come to the world's people, yet that's what is being suggested and pushed as the responsible "greed" way. I think we'd be better off foregoing the self inflicted pain and deal with whatever climate change decides to dish out, because up to this point, the dire predictions of the past have been proven wildly wrong.
Past performance doesn't guarantee future performance, but it can give you a pretty good idea what is possible. In this case, the global warming/climate change alarmist bent is alive and well. I strongly suspect they are being as ridiculously dire as they always have, if not more, and I'm unwilling to agree to basically commit "Harry Carry" on the alter of climate change.
LOL.. Anybody figuring out how this will affect the plants of the world when they have an easier time finding carbon to fix? I think your point is valid, CO2 isn't getting that high as there are way to many things which will compensate, long before we get there.
The problem here is that studies like this are based on *simulations* not observations of repeatable experiments. What we have here is a set of theories, which really cannot be proven beyond doubt.
If we are being honest here, climate change science is, at best, an educated guessing game, not a proven beyond a doubt set of scientific laws, and specifically I mean "man made climate change." The critics of this science have some valid points. Past high profile predictions of our demise from climate change have been wildly over blown, there seems to be a bias towards "making news" in order to get research grants, and little attention is paid to the views of those who disagree with the consensus.
You may not agree with them, but there are some valid objections being raised, objections that simply cannot be dismissed with a wave of the hand or by calling folks stupid.
Simulations have serious limits. It's nearly impossible to prove your models are good enough and your initial starting data resolution is accurate enough to give you reasonably good approximations of the future, even more so as your time frames move further and further out. To put it bluntly, climate simulations are less and less useful the longer you run the simulation into the future. Any fanciful claims made about the far reaches of a simulation, where the precision of the simulated results starts to get very poor, should be generally ignored. But we are slumming for funding here, so they fire off the press release...
One last time, see rule # 1.
https://www.pea.com/blog/posts...
Or from the AOPA https://www.aopa.org/news-and-...
OR gives practical examples of what happens when you don't http://iflyamerica.org/safety_...
Even NASA agrees with me, and I'm no rocket scientist. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/...
Pay close attention to the conclusions in the PDF where it clearly indicates that ATC conversations are a hindrance to task management, not a help, and clearly justifies my reluctance to engage them in conversation when struggling to come to terms with how to keep my aircraft safe.
Again, I'm no great pilot, never claimed to be one, in fact I'm a pretty poor one having very little experience. The guys in that Boeing went from about 7,000 Feet to the ground in less than two min. They had their hands full of airplane. The publicly available flight data shows a rapid descent with a pretty healthy heading change to the right. They didn't have TIME to communicate and if you where in the cockpit you'd not either. This wasn't some gentle lazy maneuver as they lost control this was a sudden change into unusual attitude which I'm sure they where struggling to correct, while trying diagnose the reasons it was happening. 120 to 180 seconds is all they apparently had, and it wasn't enough. And you think they should have had time to get out a mayday call or two? Then there is my original point, that they MAY have tried, but on a congested approach frequency in an unusual attitude it may be nobody heard them. So there are many reasons other than a major structural or even electrical failure to account for the lack of a mayday call.
But at this point, we are both guessing. So Call me back when the NTSB publishes their final report and you where right... Until then, I'm done debating basic pilot training with you.
Like I said.. The FIRST thing you do is fly. Communicating is way down the priority list.
This event happened quickly, they went from a normal descent into a +6000 FPS one in really short order and watching their heading changes tells me they stalled and spun. The lack of communication isn't an indicator of a structural failure, when you find yourself in a dire situation your first job is to recover the aircraft, diagnose enough of the problem to keep from balling it up. That job does not include mashing the PPT button and saying something lucid to the controller.
My flight instructor was right. The controllers are going to get chatty, soaking up your limited concentration, once you talk to them. It's what they are trained to do. One time I had a minor incident where the flaps on my 150 stuck full down during touch and goes. Climb performance was crap (less than 100fpm) so after I cleared the tree tops, I got on the radio and told the controller (and the traffic around the airport) that I was going to need a really LONG climb out but that I was staying in the pattern and needed to return as soon as I could. Even though I didn't declare the emergency, I got the 20 questions anyway, which was fine, I had plenty of time to answer them as I was climbing up to pattern height and didn't have much to do for about 5 min. I probably should have made the "pan pan" call but hey, I had a positive rate of climb....
There is no need to communicate with ATC until you have the aircraft under some semblance of control. Fly the plane first. Now as soon as you can take a breath and ATC can be helpful with emergency clearances and radar vectors, by all means, get on the radio. But if you are in the midst of a stall spin recovery with your hands on the throttles and yoke struggling for control, don't bother with the radio.
Just a guess, but I'll bet the load master gets paid a lot more than the folks packing boxes at the warehouse. Such work requires you to be properly trained, certified and managed and the FAA is going to be making sure of that. Also, Amazon likely isn't the load master's employer anyway, the airline likely is. Amazon likely just provides packed containers to the airline who is responsible for weighing and loading them onto the aircraft properly.
I am a pilot ... If the pilots had been in a working cockpit, there would have been at least a broken transmission.
No you are not a pilot.. I'm only a private pilot with about 100 hours experience and even I know better than this.
One of the first things my instructor taught me about emergencies is that you follow this list. 1. Aviate (you fly the aircraft first). 2. Navigate (You keep track of where you are second). 3. Communicate - (Comes last). IF you where a pilot, you'd know that list because you would have practiced that list. When you are dealing with an emergency, the LAST thing you want to do is talk to somebody on the ground who's not able to help you and only has questions for you (How much fuel do you have? How many people on board? Hazardous Cargo? What are your intentions? What's the nature of your emergency?). If you are struggling for control of the aircraft, you don't have time to play 20 questions with ATC. Fly the plane first as your life depends on being successful doing that, if you can sort things out enough to catch your breath, THEN you can talk to ATC and let them know.
So given the apparent situation, the pilots where working on #1 and didn't have time for the rest.
Structural damage is possible, thunderstorms where in the area, however, we don't hear any of the eye witnesses reporting anything but a fully assembled aircraft crashing.
It's possible they partially removed the tail though excessive control inputs during an upset recovery, or at least did enough damage to make the tail stop working. However, if the aircraft was fully assembled, this doesn't seem likely. Also, structural damage isn't common on approach as the aircraft is slowing down, approaching V(sub0) where any full control input won't damage the aircraft anyway, so structural damage on approach from over-stress isn't as likely as on departure. ,
My guess is weight and balance. It seems to explain the fast uncontrolled descent and given this was a cargo flight, it's likely they where operating near the maximum weight limits. The question I have is did he cargo get shifted during flight or was it loaded wrong before the flight. IF the aircraft was in an AFT CG condition, as you slow down, it want's to pitch up and once you reach the speed where the airflow over the horizontal stabilizer isn't enough to push the nose down, your go nose up, which slows you down and quickly puts you into a stall, even with the yoke fully forward. The pilots become passengers at this point, as you cannot control an aircraft that's stalled and unless you have a lot of altitude and a whole lot of luck you won't recover.
this is horrible and my thoughts go out to the pilots and the families of the pilots
my *guess* is that ntsb is going to discover a miscalculation of weight and balance vis a vis fuel burn that rendered the airframe no longer flyable
My guess is weight and balance, but that it changed during flight due to shifting cargo (or less likely was loaded wrong). At least that's my leading theory. For some reason some cargo broke loose or wasn't properly restrained and though the turbulence they where having moved. Then as they where slowing down for landing they lost pitch control. They either stalled it (my guess) and couldn't recover due to an aft CG shift outside of the controllable limits, or couldn't bring the nose up with the gear and flaps down (though less likely).
So, aft CG was out of controllable limits, pitch control authority wasn't enough to trim the aircraft for slow speeds in that weight and balance condition. A non-recoverable stall happens, the pilots become mere passengers and the aircraft falls out of the sky. I would have expected some radio calls, but as congested as the approach frequency is nobody may have heard them anyway.
The NTSB will know pretty quick. All this will be apparent from the CVR and Data recorder if it happened. Of course the NTSB will be very detailed and systematically put everything back together to fully understand what happened and why, but they will know within days what generally happened.
By media reports, there were at least 5 eyewitnesses to the events leading up to the crash. The eyewitnesses report that the plane appeared to be having mechanical troubles with the pilot fighting for control.
That's unreliable info, but if true it would point towards a maintenance or mechanical problem with the plane, rather than pilot error. (Many crashes are caused by pilot error, so that's not unheard of).
Gotta be horrifying for the crew, to be powerless.
Actually, in this case it looks to me like a weight and balance issue. Of course, anything that happens when you are low and slow can cause you to ball it up pretty quick and not have any warning. Weight and balance could make it impossible to control the aircraft's attitude and only become apparent as the aircraft slows down for it's approach.
So, my leading theory is that the load wasn't properly secured and shifted though the turbulence they where experiencing or during takeoff. Then as they where slowing down for the approach they couldn't keep the aircraft in trim and control the attitude. They either stalled and couldn't recover or couldn't keep the noise up as they where adding flaps and putting the gear down which involves some pretty big trim changes.
Another possible issue is a micro-burst. It was very windy and thunderstorms where around but they where way above the critical altitude to allow recovery and pilots are highly trained for recovery from any hint of this these days. They didn't seem to be low enough for this to have killed them.
It could be pilot error, but when you are an ATP rated pilot flying this kind of aircraft, even in the right seat, you have a lot of experience. It is unlikely you are going to ball it up w/o somebody in the cockpit catching your mistake. Pilot mistakes do happen, but that's why there are two and why one flies while the other monitors these days. I put pilot error at #2 on my list for this crash.
For pilot error, the most likely mode here is an "over stress" of the aircraft. They where in rough weather, it was very bumpy, and it's easy to apply too much control pressure and structurally damage the aircraft. Such damage can break your ability to control the aircraft. The most dangerous thing that's happened is pilots who applied too much rudder and the tail departs the aircraft as a result. In this case, it seems the aircraft was not missing it's tail, so I don't think this happened, though it's possible that mechanical damage got done, rendering the tail useless.
Mechanical issues are on the very bottom of my list of possible causes. It's possible something went wrong with the horizontal stabilizer and, like the weight and balance problem, they lost pitch control at the exact wrong time, but due to the huge safety issues with this part of the aircraft, there are backups of backups for controlling this. It's possible, but unlikely unless there are serious maintenance problems with the airline and the FAA's inspectors are asleep on the job.
So, mechanical issues are about the last thing on the possible list that I would investigate. My list goes, weight and balance, pilot error, weather, aircraft system failure (maintenance).
However, the NTSB will look at everything. They likely have the flight data recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder already recovered and are in the process of dumping the data now. My guess is they will pretty quickly know what caused this one. We have the complete aircraft and the black boxes. There is unlikely to be much question as to what exactly happened.
The Mythical Man Month is a MUST READ for anybody who is or manages any kind of software development staff (Really, any kind of engineering staff). Fredrick Brooks remains spot on in his observations of how software development processes and teams actually work in real life. This book was written back in the 60's, revised in the 70's but remains applicable to modern projects. Brooks is exceedingly insightful and his observations which boil down the real issues of software development still apply decades later. He may have worked on what's now considered antiques using languages which have fallen out of fashion long ago, but his focus on the practicalities of software development makes this book timeless.
Yea, it's not a "programming" book per say, but if you develop software using a team, or do any kind of engineering work with others, the insights in this book are invaluable to you and your management. I read this book every few years and share it with my management when appropriate.
The future is stupid.
The future is NOW!
... And give them the boot...
I can tell you don't sell technology to the retail market... Best a product producer can hope for is a bullet proof firmware update process these days... Working out of the box? We ain't got no time for that kind of testing.
The Prius battery is right at about 200V and most electronic things in your house (your TV, your computer and such) work on DC just fine. Those things that don't include electric motors or things that use old power transformer based power supplies instead of switching versions.
An ham radio operator published his experiences in using his daughter's Prius as a backup power source. He was able to power pretty much everything in his house that used a switching mode power supply without any issues directly from the battery. He expressed his delight in having a backup power supply that included the ability to recharge itself using the fossil fueled motor, far in excess of the capacity he could buy for the same price, yet use it to drive to work and back when he didn't need the emergency power.
Some things obviously don't work, most notably was all those wall warts, but his 12V DC generating switching power supply and some RV appliances and lighting pretty much filled any gaps.
People aren't going on Pintrest to search for vaccines to learn and make a reasoned argument. The problem is they find it organically and get sucked in.
If people wanted to search for information, they would use Google.
Problem is, even on Google you are going to get pointed to some misleading materials on vaccines. This strange mixture of sometime science and conspiracy theory that the anti-vax folks peddle is quite invasive and far reaching. There is just enough truth mixed in with their confirmation bias based opinion to persuade a lot of folks and show up on a lot of pages returned by Google.
I think this whole anti-vaccine mess is emblematic of the nature of facts and opinion in today's internet driven age, where objectivity is scorned and subjective truth rules. What is it about humans that makes us so unreasonable these days? What is it about the internet that seems to foster confirmation bias and subjective "truth" that is nothing more than misinformation and half truths? Trust me, the same issue is alive an well in political discussions too. The Anti-Vaxers might be an easy target, but the problem is bigger than just this one issue.
Long gone are the days when actual facts where not in dispute and sources of information where vetted before being considered credible. I miss those days.