I don't know whether George is reading along, and I don't even remember if this is the thread whereon we were discussing the Heathrow air crash, but here's the latest, partial, report.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/19/transport.theairlineindustry
I didn'z know it either, searched for it this morning - and forgot it over the day :wink:
George's instant reaction (which has substance being an aviator) was that it was most likely pilot error. But its not looking that way.
Well, it's not the first time George makes a mistake.
But he does it elegantly...
I heard that there is an eclipse of the moon tomorrow night...
I've been googling like mad, but can't find anything that says the time or confirms it (too many pages).
Anyone know anything?
Anyone staying up to watch it?
x
It's after tomorrow, 3:28 AM.
I'll be in Morpheus arms...
How are you Sarah?
Well, I'm not at all ready to acknowledge any error. I don't recall just what I wrote on this a few weeks back, but I believe it was a reaction to, what then appeared to me to be a too eager or premature attempt to whitewash the pilots. I don't think I claimed to know what happened, but instead speculated on the most common causes of accidents like this one.
The accident did happen and it involved the aircraft landing short of the runway on an instrument approach in poor (but not impossible) weather. I read the link above and the essential point in it is that the cause has not yet been established. In such a case the explicit assertions about the engines and other components strike me as a bit strange - in my experience we never ruled anything out until we found a cause.
The specualtion about debris or excessive aeration of the fuel suggest to me that the fuel system might have been - at some point during or just prior to the accident - configured so that the pumps were taking suction from an empty or near empty tank. This raises its own questions. Aircraft vary a bit in this, but it is not uncommon to find the fuel transfer system cross-connected - so that both engines are being fed from a common manifold - during cruise, but reconfigured so that both engines are fed from independent sources during landing. That of course requires an intervention by the pilots to alter the configuration. This is a frequently found source of problems in accident investigations.
Next, during a normal approach, the engines are running at fairly steady low thrust settings. If the aircraft gets far below the glide path (for the reasons I speculated about earlier) the natural response is pushing the throttles forward to jam accellerate the engines. This creates the most severe limiting condition in a high-bypass turbofan engine as the torque produced by the turbine only slightly exceeds that consumed by the fan & compressor (a probem common to all turbojet engines). If anything else is wrong this event will likely bring it to the fore.
In such a circumstance one is often led to a complex set of events that came together to bring about the accident. Indeed the term "cause" requires a bit of serious thought. In my experience "cause" was any and all abnormal events that contributed to the result.
Why was the aircraft so far below the prescribed glide path? How did that happen?
What action was taken to restore the approach? Was it timely and sufficient? Did all the systems function normally then? Were they properly configured?
Were system abnormalities detected when they should have been?
Finally the serious error in the fuel transfer configuration following the crash itself suggests other lines of inquiry.
Ah, George! It's seems it hit some sensitive spot!
Not at all. I have led at least 25 aircraft accident investigations, some involving multiple fatalities. I know a great deal about this stuff and my skeptical instincts were properly aroused by the initial reports. The latest version doesn't change the situation. I have made no prejudgement about the ultimate findings - instead I rejected those that came with the initial reports.
But I do appreciate your intent.
smorgs wrote:I heard that there is an eclipse of the moon tomorrow night...
I've been googling like mad, but can't find anything that says the time or confirms it (too many pages).
Anyone know anything?
Anyone staying up to watch it?
x
Quote:This time round the Moon begins to enter the Earth's shadow just after midnight, at 00.35. At this point only a slight darkening, easily missed if you do not know to expect a change, will be visible. Observers on the lunar surface would see the Earth begin to cover the Sun, but plenty of light is still reaching the Moon. Just over an hour later, at 01.43, the Moon enters the umbral region, where the Sun is completely blocked by the Earth. From this until the total part of the eclipse begins, at 03.01, an increasingly large dark bite will appear to have been taken out of the Moon.
During the 51 minutes of totality no light can pass directly from the Sun to the Moon, and so you might expect it to disappear from view completely. However, some sunlight is bent by the Earth's atmosphere, and we see the Moon during totality dimly lit by this refracted light.
The appearance of the eclisped Moon thus depends on the state of the Earth's atmosphere. In the past particularly dark eclipses have followed large volcanic eruptions. The Moon in eclipse is most often described as being a deep, blood-red colour, but last year's lunar eclipse, in March, was at the opposite end of the scale, with the Moon appearing a salmon-pink colour. I predict more of the same this time round, helped by the Moon's track being near the edge of the shadow rather than through the centre, but the only way to be sure is to go out and look.
In a nutshell the moon begins to fade at 0035. A chunk of moon disappears from 0143, getting bigger until its all gone at 0301. It comes back later but you never know...this time perhaps it wont. I might set the alarm for 0250. Remember to wrap up if you go out moon watching S.
The moon begins to fade in a nutshell?
How do they get it up there?
I dont want to spoil it for ya Mct its all part of the magic. Actually its all to do with umbras and penumbras. Smorgs will be the expert on bras.
I'm going to post a picture of GWB's bum on the Bush Thread, q.v.
Hey that was a good footie match tonight. Liverpool deserved 2 goals and a penalty.
I was just thinking how many US Presidents el Presidente of Cuba has seen off. Is it 8 or 9
Eisenhower
Kennedy
Johnson
Nixon
ford
Carter
Reagan
Bush 1
Clinton
Bush 2 (nearly)
any more?
And of course leaving office in his own good time just anoys the Americans even more. Viva Fidel, viva la Revolucion! To cap it all Bush said he hoped Cuba would release all political prisoners...from Guantanamo?
Then I watched John Bolton on CNN hoping that Castro was nearly dead...strange man.
George-
What about Adam being weak willed.
Was that the real cause?
Steve 41oo wrote:smorgs wrote:I heard that there is an eclipse of the moon tomorrow night...
I've been googling like mad, but can't find anything that says the time or confirms it (too many pages).
Anyone know anything?
Anyone staying up to watch it?
x
Quote:This time round the Moon begins to enter the Earth's shadow just after midnight, at 00.35. At this point only a slight darkening, easily missed if you do not know to expect a change, will be visible. Observers on the lunar surface would see the Earth begin to cover the Sun, but plenty of light is still reaching the Moon. Just over an hour later, at 01.43, the Moon enters the umbral region, where the Sun is completely blocked by the Earth. From this until the total part of the eclipse begins, at 03.01, an increasingly large dark bite will appear to have been taken out of the Moon.
During the 51 minutes of totality no light can pass directly from the Sun to the Moon, and so you might expect it to disappear from view completely. However, some sunlight is bent by the Earth's atmosphere, and we see the Moon during totality dimly lit by this refracted light.
The appearance of the eclisped Moon thus depends on the state of the Earth's atmosphere. In the past particularly dark eclipses have followed large volcanic eruptions. The Moon in eclipse is most often described as being a deep, blood-red colour, but last year's lunar eclipse, in March, was at the opposite end of the scale, with the Moon appearing a salmon-pink colour. I predict more of the same this time round, helped by the Moon's track being near the edge of the shadow rather than through the centre, but the only way to be sure is to go out and look.
In a nutshell the moon begins to fade at 0035. A chunk of moon disappears from 0143, getting bigger until its all gone at 0301. It comes back later but you never know...this time perhaps it wont. I might set the alarm for 0250. Remember to wrap up if you go out moon watching S.
I think yous had better sacrifice a virgin or goat or something just to make sure the moon comes back.
You can use the "heathen club" thread if you like.
They'll have trouble finding a virgin in manchester to sacrifice...
Plenty of goats though.
Thanks for the info, chaps.
Heard on the news (stevie) that Castro had seen off 10 presidents.
x
I've misplaced my bloody wallet this morning. Oh woe is me. I'm gonna curse the moon and the CIA.
Its down the back of the sofa steve.
