A British Airways 777 crashed short of the runway at Heathrow. This was due to icing in the fuel system and drove a pretty simple design change. There were no fatalities but there were some serious injuries.
Another 777 crashed while landing at San Francisco due to pilot errors. I don't think...
That would be the worst of worst case scenarios, for the plane to lose both engines and all hydraulics just as it's leaving the runway. I'm scrutinizing the wings and I don't see evidence that the flaps are extended. This wouldn't be the first crash caused by no flaps on takeoff. I remember a...
If that's what happened, I think WOW! With the sophistication of automation on the 787, that almost sounds like something the flight control system shouldn't allow a pilot to do. I'm not a fan of a plane overruling pilot authority, but there are some things that shouldn't be possible to do...
There's a lot of esoteric terminology in there, so I really don't understand most of it. I did recognize the safety wire installed backwards, can only serve to make things loosen up. If I understand correctly, the loose VSV actuator could cause a lot of inconsistent performance that might be...
I am waiting to watch the documentary. I would rather see the accident report (from the Coast Guard, I think) before I watch anything else, as I would expect that there may be some things added or left out to make the story more sensational. Maybe not, but I won't base my opinions on the...
I've never used BACnet but it seems like any other client/server protocol. I've used MODBUS extensively and maybe the biggest difference between the two is that BACnet employs some security features that are absent from MODBUS?
Tug might be talking about me. I might tell people I'm a flat earther, but it's only because it pisses them off. Then I would get to go on a junket to Vegas with other flat earthers, get TV interviews, gamble, spend the night with hookers, and say it's all in the interest of science.
NASA made claims that the risk of losing a vehicle was something like 1:100,000 which seemed like a made up number, pulled out of one's a$$. Subsequent reviews revealed a LOV failure rate of closer to 1:100 which was very much closer. Those numbers are listed in the CAIB report and I'm just...
That doesn't look like steam to me. Visible water vapor usually is separated from the stack and then disappears after a short while. Stack emissions are hard to read from a picture though. Many years ago I was trained to read opacity and from that picture looks bad, like maybe 25-30%
