Jeffwxyz

Hi everybody, I ask you all to take a few minutes and have a look at this http://ssunitedstatesconservancy.org/SSUSCPressRelease021009FINAL.pdf I am sorry if this should go in SC. I am trying to make this visible. Our country stands to loose one of our best examples of engineering work of the 20th century if nothing is done. Given the cost of keeping a ship like this operational, it is unlikely that it could ever be sold to be used as a commercially viable passenger ship. The best that we can hope for is some sort of status as a museum. Otherwise, it will most definately end up being scrapped in the far east. For those that don't know already. Ships like this are becoming very rare. In fact it is the only ship of its size class with an intact powerplant. Another surviving example would be the Queen Mary, but the powerplant was largely removed when the ship was bought by Long Beach, Ca. They are not the same as a cruise ship. These were ment to move people across the Atlantic as fast as possible before jet airliners became popular. These ships typically have 6 - 8 times the horsepower than a comparable sized cruise ship. The Queen Mary could out-run her destroyer escorts while in troop ship service during WW II. The Queen Mary could comfortably make 30 knots and 36 maximum. The Queen Mary is an 80,000 ton, 1019' long ship. This is as big and as fast as our modern aircraft carriers. The top speed of 38 knots of The SS United States was kept top secret until 1977 because of its capability as a troop ship. Just recently, one of the ships that competed with the SS United States was scrapped in India. It was the France aka Norway. Examples: Normandie: Accidental fire in New York. Scrapped Queen Elizabeth: Burned (poss. Arson) in Hong Kong. Scrapped Queen Mary: Survivor. Engineering spaces largely gutted France/Norway: Scrapped 2008 Queen Elizabeth 2: Sold for use to convert to an Apartment Building/ Shopping Center. All original interior and engineering spaces will be gutted SS America: Lost at sea while under tow. Ran aground. Fell to hands of nature There were many more examples. This list would be too long to post here, but there are only a few survivors.

Normally, when you have auxiliary contacts on a breaker they are used for indicator lights, to power a coil on a control relay or to interlock with another device. Are you sure that you have a Circuit Breaker? Judging by the numbers you gave us, may be a I.E.C. rated CONTACTOR. There is a big difference between a Breaker, a Contactor and a relay. It could even be an overload relay. We need to know what it really is. The numbers are for sure from an IEC device. Can you give us a picture? Also can you tell us the manufacturer? I can look up the info in a catalog if I know that.

I think the real reason is that parachutes do not have sun visors with vanity mirrors, so women are not trying to put on their make up while under canopy. Therefore, less accidents than what else could be. I am going to take cover now!

Well what about the transfercase. The ones that Ford used in the 90's have a chain to transfer power from the rear output shaft to the front output shaft. I bet this would need to be rebuilt every 30-40k miles for this type of application. I don't know much about what they used in the 80's though. These boat vans were an 80's thing. I know that if they used a good old unmarried cast iron unit it would be better.

I don't remember a for sale sign. I think it was a light color, maybe white. It was on Beach Blvd, on the north side of the street, between Ball Rd and Orange Ave.

I have seen one about 15 years ago in Anaheim, Ca. The one that I had seen did not have the boat so well integrated into the back of the van body. The one you show looks like a nice idea, but it did not turn out so good. I don't think the lines follow through the body very well. I do remebmer that they started with a 4 wheel drive van. The rear section was discarded along with the original rear drive axle. The 2 new rear axles were unpowered, probably boat trailer axles. So it is driven only from the original front axle.

Yes it is IE v 7.0. Also on another machine 6.? After reading the suggested thread, it does seem like it is an iframe coding problem. I found a forum that is discussing s soultion http://www.codingforums.com/archive/index.php/t-32512.html If that is not applicable, then it may be a hint. The iframe ad should not go into the browser history, therefore the back button would work normally.

In the past 2 weeks something has changed with the ads that are posted in the forums. Before, you could click the back button once and go back a page. About 2 weeks ago, you would have to click the back button twice to go back a page. First, it was due to a google ad that I did not get the address of. No when you click the back button, you have to click it 3-4 times to go back a page. The links that are inbetween the pages are: http://adtution.com/serve/ad?page_titl Can you please fix this. This is making it difficult to navigate in the forums.

So.... With the plate and screws in there, does it reinforce the bone so that it won't be as likely to break again? Maybe that would be a plus. Has anyone had a break with a plate in? What about pins?

You can also get that message is there is a problem with the device (could be, a switch, hub, router or modem) at the end of the cable opposite of the computer. You did not mention what it is, or if you had already checked there. If you have another (unused) device such as a switch, you could plug it in at the end opposite of the cable. If the "unplugged" problem goes away, then that will tell you that the problem was in the original device. Else, then back to the computer end.

Its at Elsinore, but they don't look familiar. They must have been there for a tandem.

Maybe she was calling to check in that he really made that appointment that she made him make. She may be just sub-contracting the dirty work to you. You may get them calling and wanting a progress report of how he is shaping up.

Not everyone who died in 2008 died because they made a mistake. Sometimes accidents just happen, even to highly intelligent, well-trained, safety-conscious people. Please don't take this as an attack as I have heard the same thing elsewhere, but I have to disagree in part to this. We should never accept the idea that accidents "just happen" for no reason. When people die while skydiving it is because a series of mistakes were made (not just one) and these mistakes can involve several people in an incident. Again I say that we should never accept the idea that accidents "just happen" for no reason because this is a slippery slope. If that attitude existed everywhere then stop and think what could happen with our existing level of safety. Would people eventually stop trying to be safe if they thought they could die anyway? What about accident investigations? Would we stop doing them throughly because we start thinking "He was going to die eventually"? That is part of "our" problem. There is so much that is in "our" control. When I write "our" I mean not just us as an individual jumper, but how about: All of the other jumpers on your load The Pilot The aircraft mechanic The DZO The air traffic controller Your rigger Your gear manufacturers This list could go on and on. All of the above should be refered to as us, we and our. Because if there are enough mistakes made by any combination of the we are all as good as dead. This goes back to us as individuals. We must all take a stand and do something when something is unsafe and not just accept it as a fact of life.

The dolphin video made me think we need to go fire up the Enola Gay and deliver a "package" to that fishing village.

At Regulations.gov, you can read the comments submitted regarding this matter. It appears that the majority of the comments come from those involved in General Aviation and not specificly skydiving. Here is a link to those comments: http://www.regulations.gov/search/search_results.jsp?sid=11EF3184DDBA&Ntt=TSA-2008-0021&Ntk=All&Ntx=mode+matchall&N=8060&css=0&Ne=2+8+11+8053+8054+8098+8074+8066+8084+8055+11 I searched for the docket number with the word "skydiving" and it only found 2 results. One of them was the official comment by the USPA. The other was from an individual. His comments seem more convincing and to the point than USPA's. Here is a link to those 2. http://www.regulations.gov/search/search_results.jsp?css=0&N=0&Ntk=All&Ntx=mode+matchall&Ne=2+8+11+8053+8054+8098+8074+8066+8084+8055&Ntt=TSA-2008-0021%20skydiving&sid=11EF31AE5A00 I think there should be a stronger response from us. Now they want to control >12,500 lbs. What is to say that does not get lowered once they have their "foot in the door"?

I'm sorry if this seems redundant. I tried to find a current thread that was unlocked, but I did not find one. Also, I am trying to highlight that there are still 2 more public hearings pending.

Congratulations! But, did you complete the beer section on your license progression card? This is improtant, like emergency procedures, there are beer procedures. At Elsinore, looking at the aerial photo of the landing area is only part of what you need to know. They should have the Dairy clearly shown on the photo. This is so all students know where to buy beer. So in the event that you have a "Beer" event, you can quickly proceed to get the beer as if it is part of your muscle memory. Also, students need to know what the local prefered beers are. You would have a problem if you went to Stater Brothers Market and bought the generic beer in the plain labeled cans. Pacifico and Corona works best at Elsinore. If you buy a few limes that helps.

I have not seen anyone here post anything on these hearings. I am a bit surprised that I found out about this elsewhere. There are still 2 left. One in Burbank, Ca. on Jan. 23, 2009. The other is in Houston, TX on Jan. 28, 2009. More on this can be found here: http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/tsnm/general_aviation/rules.shtm There is a section on the Experimental Aircraft Association's website. They mention that the hearing in Chicago on the 16th drew 250 people. They were unanimously opposed to the rule. http://www.eaa.org/news/2009/2009-01-16_hearing.asp So, there are 2 more meetings. Are any DZOs and skydivers going?

If the poster is a cute girl then give her the answers. If it is a he, then make him do it.

When the shit hit the fan, I read that they were only up to 3200 feet. Another post suggested that these planes have a glide ratio of (maybe) 16 to 18:1 Thats 10.9 miles at best. Now put some flaps down so you don't have to land in the river at 250 kts. I am sure the glide ratio gets a lot shorter. A real glider has a glide ratio of 40:1. Also, keep in mind when you loose power like this: Step 1, nose down, maintain airspeed. So you are going to start loosing altitude right away. To make it worse, the pilot may "waste" altitude while trying to settle in to the best glide. With only 3200 feet, the best glide is not really going to be found. This is on top of talking on the radio, informing the cabin crew and passengers, and changing the planes configuration. In that first 15 seconds, there is a lot of shit to do. So, you can't blame them if thy loose a few hundred extra feet. The pilot did the right thing. This is no different than when a skydiver has to land out. If he passes up prime landing areas to try and get home, then gets injured or killed, people wonder why he was trying to get home so bad.

Look at this. A safe, no power landing of a 767 in 1983. The pilot was also a glider pilot in his off time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

According to the manual, the RAT will auto deploy if AC power is lost on both AC busses. There are 3 ways to pump hyd fluid on the A320. Direct drive from each engine, Electric motor driven pumps, and the RAT. If the APU was running at the time of the bird strike (it would normally be) then the APU would have kept AC power up and the RAT would not have deployed. Also, with AC power, there would have been full functionality of all 3 hydraulic systems because of the electric pumps. The RAT only feeds 1 hyd system which only provides basic flight control. An interesting point is that all 3 hydraulic tanks hold a combined amount of 8.8 gallons Not any allowance for a leak! The pilot would have to lower the flaps to stay in the air at a low enough air speed to land safely. Dragging the tail to bleed speed off is also important in ditching.

I don't know when this happened. It must have been on a weekday. That would have been a riot during a weekend. The best part is, the weather that we have been having here lately probably allowed this to happen. This is our harsh California winter.

I'm sorry to read about mom. That sucks. Life is precious. When Elle grows up, are you going to bring her out to Elsinore? I am sure she will be a hit.

That was uncalled for. Karma will get you for stuff like this.