I'm top prime cut of meat, I'm your choice...
So now at last, the MAX8 has been grounded in the USA. Some reports say that the FAA mandated this, although a report I read said that Boeing themselves had grounded it - probably by way of an airworthiness directive or equivalent.
The last time I remember this happening was in 1979 when all DC10s worldwide were grounded after an engine fell off one as it departed Chicago O'Hare.
That wasn't me who said that?
No, you said you were going to slap me around the head with a wet fish.
I was referring to the Airbus software that overides pilot input... and we talked lot about it when one went down over the Atlantic on the way to South America from Europe. Most people here know what I was talking about. The pitot tube was a specific case to that one,k but the point is that the software took input control away from the pilots.
No, you're wrong about that. That's not what happens. Read up on flight AF447. A report is on Wiki, and states:
"At 02:10:05 UTC the autopilot disengaged because the blocked pitot tubes were no longer providing valid airspeed information, and the aircraft transitioned from normal law to alternate law 2."
-which is the opposite of what you said. You said the software took control away from the pilots. When the autopilot disengages, it's actually giving control back to the pilots.
Anyway - the UK has just banned MAX8 flights from UK airspace.
Ladies and gentlemen:
If you forgot why you hated this dude, just reread the title and realize he was dismissing the death of hundreds to be able to say "I told you so" in a decades old tit for tat that, literally, means nothing.
Beets, you're one sad mother fucker.
Not bad, TX-Mom, but you have a long way to go to match acfireguy26, who once said to me
"If I ever meet you I am going to punch you square in your mouth. I promise."
And Maverick replied "The line for that is behind me."
Fly by wire? It's a Boeing we're talking about.
Ethiopia is a red flag - maintenance issues etc - but on a four month old plane?
There seems to be a problem with the MAX8 version of the B737. The recent crash in Ethiopia in which all 157 people on board were killed was the second in five months involving this aircraft type.
USA Today report: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/…-max-8-safety/3126793002/
Some airlines have already grounded all MAX8 aircraft, pending investigation.
Looks like if you're booked on a Boeing, you might not be going.
Lazs - what actually happened in Hungary was that migrants fleeing Syria were pouring into Europe through Serbia and then through Hungary. The Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orban got pissed off with this, and sought help from the EU (eurocunts) to stem the tide. The EU did nothing, and so Orban took matters into his own hands and had a fence built along the frontier with Serbia, which was later extended.
Some of the migrants were fleeing war zones, but not following the rules of asylum. They are supposed to apply for asylum in the first safe country they reach. But many of them simply wanted to steamroller their way across an entire continent until reaching a country that took their fancy. A lot of them ran straight into the welcoming arms of Angela "let 'em all in" Merkel in Germany, thus sparking a wave of Islamic crime in the region.
A bone of contention though.... meat doesn't really make you fat. It helps build muscle though, which is why we're all so much stronger than you pale cunts.
Yeah, but fish is brain food - which is why we are much smarter than you dumb cunts!
I've not posted much recently, but I am not dead. I got back from South America on November 22, and I've been a bit preoccupied since.
Still seeing MLW - it's 13 years for us this month. She's just on her way back from Portugal, with the cuckold. Hope to see her soon.
I really enjoyed my visit to South America. The flight to Santiago was on a Dreamliner! (787-9 - the one Holden said could fly from London to Sydney non stop, but can't) It was OK. The window blinds are electronic. An electric switch controls the opacity of the window. There is no physical window blind. That flight was 14½ hours - the longest sector operated by British Airways.
Did quite a bit of wine tasting in Chile, and in Argentina, where we were also able to enjoy a Tango night in Buenos Aires. But fuck me, I can't believe how much red meat I was expected to eat. I know it's normal in North America, which is why you cunts are all so fat. But I found myself having to seek out restaurants which had a good fish menu - on at least 3 evenings.
We travelled by road across the Andes when we left Santiago on our way to Mendoza - Argentina's 4th largest city.
This mountain is called Cerro Aconcagua. It's the highest mountain in South America - in fact the highest in all the Americas, and highest in the southern and western hemispheres.
They're serious about wine!
You know when you've been tangoed...
Well, it's nice to be back for a while..
This summer, I've got SIX motorcycle tours planned, and four of those are overseas, so I might not be able to post much during the summer.
Yes, but you misspelled agree as "argue". Must be your predictive text editor.
Give me a break.
Which of these statement you made do you agree with? Which will you agree with next week?
Both are true. My position with regard to this will remain unchanged next week when I'm in Rio.
I'm glad you have seen the light and understand that below or above the surface makes no difference now.
Have a good time...
Oh, but it does make a difference! When submerged ice melts, it becomes more dense as it approaches 4 deg C, and the reduction in volume offsets the displaced sea water. See MiniD's somewhat obvious kitchen experiment. But when ice above the surface melts, it adds to the volume of surrounding water, as MY kitchen experiment shows. Other than that, there is no difference in the composition of ice. Like i said - ice is ice.
I have complied with your instruction to have a good time in South America. Started in Santiago, continued through the Andes by road to Mendoza, passing Aconcagua, the tallest mountain in the Americas and, I believe, the southern hemisphere. We then flew on to Buenos Aires, where I have been since Sunday. Leaving tomorrow, and flying to Iguassu Falls, and on Friday I fly on to Rio de Janeiro for five days, then home.
That's why it always happens this time of year. The Santa Ana winds. The winds are also why it was 100 degrees last Thanksgiving. It took me 8 years to stop getting settled into the cool weather - because every damn year the wind comes from down south and it gets hotter than in summer for several days.
Years ago, I warned you that these epic heatwaves and concomitant fires would become more frequent and more extreme.
You said, "When that berg above waterline melts, it runs into the surrounding sea, contributing to sea level rise."
That is true.
Then why all your confusion about the exposed part of the ice?
No confusion here. The figures I gave were for when ALL the 100 tonnes of ice melt, both above AND below the waterline. The nett effect would be a 3% increase on the volume of the surrounding sea. So clearly the melting of the visible portion DOES play a part, if only a small part. 10% of that 3% increase - which you probably feel amounts to "insignificant digits".
100 tons of frozen seawater iceberg changes the volume of the sea by nothing, as it all came from the sea in the first place.
And that's where YOU got confused - because icebergs are not formed of frozen seawater.
Well I really must go this time. Thank's for the argument, Holden. Carry on arguing with yourself if you wish.
You show a basic misunderstanding here. Be ignorant in South America too.
The 10 tons of water above the sea are part of the mass of ice that is already accounted for in the displacement.
It adds volume just as the submerged portion adds. The total mass of the iceberg adds volume.
No, I allowed for that. My exact words were "So there would be an initial splash increase of 97,087 litres displaced, then as the berg melted fully, there would be no water displaced, but 100,000 litres of water added to the body of water in which the berg was resting before melting - an increase of a further ~3%."
97,087 would be the volume of seawater displaced by 100 tonnes of ice, not 90 tonnes. After the berg has completely melted the volume of fresh water in the ocean would have increased by 100,000 litres: 90,000 for the submerged portion of berg, and 10,000 for the portion of berg above the surface. But from that we must subtract the volume of displaced sea water because there no longer is any. So whereas the ocean level was originally raised by 97,087 litres of displaced seawater upon berg splashdown, it's now up by 100,000 litres - an increase of ~3%. Which is what I said.
Actually its 3.000401706%, but I know your feelings about insignificant digits.
South America starts tomorrow - an 8pm flight. I hope I get a window seat. I'll be sure to think of you every time I see (10% of) an iceberg! :laugh
Oh wait... never mind.
Holden - the text that you quoted is correct. The 10 tonnes of berg above the waterline melts to form 10,000 litres of water which is added to the volume of the surrounding sea, ie 1 litre per Kg. When ice on land melts, it forms 1 litre of water for every Kg, just like the ice in my fridge. Ice is ice. Get over it.
OMG!!! Only someone who would claim the Canary Islands were part of an European landmass- IE, Spain- would state we're at danger from invisible icebergs.
And that's all from me. I'm off to South America. I doubt that I'll pass any icebergs on the way!
Now can we talk of the other part of that post, the part you ignored?
I haven't ignored it. My position is unchanged since last Sunday, and I repeated it today.
But what would happen if this berg were to float away to warmer climes (as some do) and melt completely? There would be no longer be any displaced seawater, but the melting of the berg would have added 100,000 litres to the surrounding body of water - a nett increase of 2913 litres before the melt begins - an increase of about 3%.
So there would be an initial splash increase of 97087 litres displaced, then as the berg melted fully, there would be no water displaced, but 100,000 litres of water added to the body of water in which the berg was resting before melting - an increase of a further ~3%.
Now you're asking "How much of that change happens from that which was floating above the surface?" And the answer to that question would be about 10% - that being the proportion of the berg floating above the surface.
What a funny question. And why are you asking me? Can't you work it out for yourself?
Or is it one of those Sluggo Overdrive type questions, where you ask questions to see if I know!