Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:34, 10 July 2007

Archives

Archive - Archive 1 - 04/2007 - 05/2007 - 06/2007

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

TransAVIAexport shootdown

Hehe, very neutral title I've come to post under... but let's be honest, it was shot down; I think we can be pretty certain of that, regardless of what the government were saying. Y'know, although it is likely just rubbish being spouted by the authorities to cover up the dangerous aspects of their country, and I don't believe a word of my own theories, it's got me thinking... It does seem at least theoreticaly possible that, if a heat-seeking SAM struck the engine direct or even if a chance RPG shot got it, and the engine flamed-out immediatly, it could seem just like an internal problem - something blew in the engine, shut it down quickly, pull the extuinguisher, leave the autopilot to keep going. If you get the shut off vaves quickly, you probably wouldn't notice the differecne on your valves, but the engine's still soaked with flammable liquid. That's probably more than the extuinguisher can cope with, but even so, residual engine heat could make it re-ignite. No-one notices the extra drag because the autopilot is compensating, and they may even be distracted by discussing the recent 'engine failure', since they'd know it was big 'coz they'd have obviously felt it. Meantime, it's either burning a little or heating through, and the foam from the extuinguisher (Or do they use CO2? Makes little difference here.) is being blown away by the air flow. After a few minutes, some sheltered bit deep inside the engine erupts into flame; the heat from that is sufficient to make any other fuel, oil, hydraulics if routed via the engine etc ignite pretty quickly. Of course, that's a problem big enough to cause an audible warnign, and maybe even cut the autopilot out. Realising how much trouble they are in for the first time, and by this relatively late stage already at 10,000 ft, they turn round for an emergency landing. By then, though, fire is spreading along the tubing for various things - fire can burn round shut-off valves, and the inside of even a cut off tube is still wet - and compromising the structural integrity of the wing. The rest is history (even if the linked accident does involve the horizontal stabiliser instead; same idea). Blood Red Sandman 17:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me first say that I never assumed you thought the plane wasn't shot down, merely proposing a way which the original text would work. (Essentially acting as a devil's advocate, which I appreciate unlike many people. I also assume that we both realize the improbable, but not impossible, nature of the situation you're proposing.) Here is how I envisage a chain of events like this, and it's based on two basic assumptions;

1) The aircraft had no cargo, so the loss of an engine might not be as perceptible. With a heavy cargo, losing an engine would cause a drop in airspeed impossible not to notice.

2) The flightcrew were incompetent/poorly rested/drunk/etc. enough not to notice the instruments for engine 2 showing no power right away.

Even in an aircraft with four engines, a smart crew would turn back when noticing the loss of an engine right after takeoff. (If the engine craps out and the flight is 3/4 of the way to it's destination it'd keep going of course.) Actually, if an engine went out without the crew noticing right away, when they eventually did the question might be; "What happened to stop the engine dead with no warning, is it about to happen with the other 3 engines? Is the fuel contaminated, etc.)

Again, though I think it's improbable, it's certainly still within the realm of possibility. According to the USAF when the second XB-70 collided with a F-104 during it's appearance in a photo op; approx 70% of the right and the entire left vertical stabilizers were torn from it. The pilots didn't notice right away, and it flew straight for 15 seconds, due to the plane's unique wing design. Then there was the 737 incident where the pilots deactivated the good engine and didn't realize until too late. Anynobody 06:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you come online at the same time as me! (Early start here, I'm on UTC+1). Yeah, I can envisage such an event happening; confusion regularly occurs in minor ways in cockpits without us ever realising, and, as in the examples you give, does escalate sometimes. I've heard tales of people not noticing a problem even when competent and alert until they slowed for landing, and the lower airspeed messed up the aerodynamics of what turned out to be a crippled plane. And, according to at least one documentary, the pilots on United Airlines Flight 232 took about 10 secs to notice complete hydraulic pressure drop because they where too busy shutting down no. 3, another possible factor here. Only when they tried to realign it did they realise; curiosly, it took about 30 seconds to begin phugoid gyrations. Blood Red Sandman 06:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The hydraulic situation on that flight was one that indeed made itself obvious without having to look at a pressure gage, but not immediately of course, after the fluid has drained. Now that you mention it though it's a great example of how easily shrapnel from a damaged engine in that situation caused new difficulties. The hydraulic failure was their main problem, engine two dying by itself would not have been as serious an issue. (I thought engine numbers started on the left and increase as the position moves right. DC-10: #1 under left wing, #2 in the tail, #3 under the right wing, Il-76: #1 under left wing outboard, #2 under left wing inboard, #3 under right wing inboard, and #4 under right outboard.) I'm actually UTC-7, every day of the year since I live in Arizona. Anynobody 07:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's allways struck me as a strange way of numbering it and I've often wondered if it's right, but without actually looking for it I've never seen it described as anything other than no 3... although checking the article, it agrees with logic, and calls it no 2. Sometimes, though, people have no idea of such a failure. I once saw an NTSB document regarding an uncontained engine failure on a FedEx cargo jet, where although I believe (not positive) they were aware that it was an emergency engine failure and not just a standard flameout/shut down job, I do know that it was only on inspection after landing that they discavered the full extent of the damage: punctures to the cabin (which fortunatly didn't explosivly decompress), punctures to the wing, to the cowling of the nearest engine to the failed one, and even to a fuel tank - all without them noticing. Pretty worrying. Dunno if you gathered - probably from my strange spellings and my time zone - but yeah, I'm UK, so UTC+1 for now, UTC exactly later in the year. Blood Red Sandman 16:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, logic that established a system where an engine in the tail comes before one under the right wing eludes me also. I used to think number 3 was the aft engine too, it just made sense; number forward to aft, left to right (like reading a book I guess). Then I started reading crash reports, here's a nice looking FAA site about American Airlines Flight 191, the DC-10 that lost an engine on takeoff at O'hare. The FAA and Douglas reports all mentioned the way engines 1 and 3 were mounted to the wing (There are links to what I first read, this site overall is geared more towards the general public.) I figured Douglas must've had an odd way to number their engines, surely Boeing and Lockheed called the aft engine number 3. Nope, I was wrong and later found out that the numbering sequence factors in pilots having to fly aircraft from different manufacturers.

I did indeed assume your dialect to be English English but don't really see y'all's spelling as weird except for the word armour. I don't know if you have them in the UK, but here in the states we have a brand of hot dogs called Armour which makes me chuckle when one describes 12"s of armour. Anynobody 06:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

My table

That item was written after numerous experiences with now banned User:Terryeo, and active users User:COFS and User:Justanother. Finding those article edits and discussion postings will be a lengthy project. I am willing to help with it.--Fahrenheit451 03:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not as time consuming as you might think. If you remember Terryeo pretending to not understand the topic on a talk page, try seasrching just his/her contributions to Talk pages, like this:

{{user3}} > Terryeo (talk · contribs · logs) > . If you remember a controversial edit, narrow the search to only (Main) space: , or here for User talk pages

I used this method to find a comment I remember: CSI LA making to Tilman I thought I'd never find in just a few minutes. I appreciate your help, did this procedure make sense? Anynobody 05:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No.--Fahrenheit451 23:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Make an edit to any page, I'll use this one as an example.

1a. Here's what you'll get (I'm going to use this example for others so I have to include stuff I know that you know, sorry if it sounds condescinding).

2. Use the template.

2a. Preview the edit.

3. Select (contribs).

3a. This is what you'll get.

3b. To narrow by namespace use this drop down.

3c. Also, for those who still edit: Their (contribs) show up on your watchlist among other places.

It's easier to describe with visual aids. Anynobody 00:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, now I understand.--Fahrenheit451 13:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page box

Minor point I suppose, but is there a reason you tagged my post as out of sequence on the evidence talk page? It's the most recent thing before the next subheading. Durova 18:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed there was, but no offense was meant to you. Su-Jada didn't use headings but instead simply placed the "header" in bold and this didn't include an option, which implied to me that even though he/she signed it a couple of different times it was still one post. I know that posting in the middle of another user's longer messages is allowed and there is a good chance Su-Jada probably meant to make them === type headings. Rather than editing his/her posts I figured this was a good compromise to avoid confusion, no offense to Scientologists but I've found them apt to complain about such actions for questionable reasons. (I've read through several older arbcoms and afds where the posting gets so out of order I've just stopped reading. I'm trying to keep that from happening here.) Seriously though, I meant nothing against you, I posted in the box too. Anynobody 20:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Venn diagram

The venn diagram you made on or looks better than the old style. Could you make 15 more of them? Check out the rest of the logical connectives diagrams. The convention for the rest of them is that the light part interprets to true, whereas yours is the opposite. That's okay! We can use the one you made already for nor, which would be consistent. Be well, Gregbard 08:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure I'll give it a try, do you mean opposite like this? I'm not mathematically talented, and I was kinda afraid I'd misapply it somehow so don't be shy about putting them where they'd be most appropriate. (I was just messing around and thought the end result looked cooler than the original.) Anynobody 09:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, yeah I think I can do this. It'll take a bit of time of course, but now that I see what you mean I can make it happen. Anynobody 06:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoofing

AN, I think I have been more than patient about my request that you remove the images that conceal your identity and conceal the links to bypass the redirect also, I might add. Please remove them now. Thanks. --Justanother 05:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I assumed you had followed the status of my request through the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 7#Anynobody (talk · contribs) password help, I guess not. I still haven't heard back. Frankly though this looks like yet another example of you bringing up a non issue when your position somewhere else becomes untenable. Anynobody 05:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am simply asking you to remove something that you should not have done and that Durova has backed me up on. So why not quit being a whatever and just save us the trouble and do it. Thanks. --Justanother 05:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, here's what Durova said. Had my changes not complied with her requests I'm pretty sure I would have heard back by now, considering she's posted here since. I was going to ask her if she was satisfied with my change of signature, but figured you would have cried foul considering what's happening at the arbcom. Since you brought her opinion up, I assume you'd have no problem with me asking her. Right? Anynobody 05:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is unrelated to the arb case. Ask whomever you like. --Justanother 05:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I already did. Out of curiosity though, on what policy/guideline are you basing these changes you propose I make? Anynobody 05:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Common sense" that one would not disguise one user page to look like another. --Justanother 06:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Common sense says you don't know what spoofing means then, I'm not pretending to be Anynobody I am Anynobody. That's gotta be one of the funniest answers you have given me yet. Common sense is "if it's not broken don't fix it", this is my solution until the password issue can be resolved. It's more than clear who I am and what the problem is, especially if you look at my User page. That is why I found it funny, given that I've made things so transparent you're implying I'm hiding something and that "Common Sense" dictates in order to fix the issue I take off the graphics that make it so clear who I am. Anynobody 06:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Justanother said this on Durova's talk page. As I have no intention of moving the conversation there, I'm going to comment on it here:

An interesting way of putting it. --Justanother 06:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Intriguing observation, Justanother considering what you said above. Ask whomever you like. Anynobody 06:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you lost the password on your original account? That sort of thing occasionally happens. The standard solution is to post an explanation on your user page. Thanks for fixing the signature issue and leaving a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. The redirects in your user space are still a bit confusing. I suggest either changing those into soft redirects or posting an explanation at the top of the hard-redirected destination pages. Justanother, would that address your objection or have I missed something? Regards to both, and hoping this is one point where we can all reach agreement. Durova 08:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Your summary of the problem is more or less correct. The redirects ensure I receive all information intended for me in one spot, when you mentioned fixing the signature it was with the understanding that I should emphasize the Anynobody identity. Anynobody 08:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I should also explain that I'm not interested in satisfying Justanother's request on face value, because this type of "concern" seems to pop up as conveniently as his references to WP:AGF etc. as cited by your evidence. Anynobody 09:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Off the top of my head I remember him taking issue with the way I worded a post he wasn't able to reply to directly. Anynobody 09:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Earlier, there was this. Only two or three people besides Justanother and myself knew he was the author of this comment. He made an issue with not including context, which was probably BS because the other edits he made in the particular conversation weren't really any better and would've only served to make him look more like a jerk. Nonetheless around the time I tried to initiate WP:DR on his actions re: Barbara Schwarz and the comment in question, is when it suddenly became an issue. Yet at the same time he had no problem doing the same thing, less civilly, with other editors comments about him . Anynobody 09:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Justanother does have a legitimate point about username confusion. Although I wish he or she would express it in milder terms and I wish you'd strikethrough the j-word in that post above. Please remember - and I mean this toward both of you - that arbitration happens because one or more editors doesn't exercise enough self-control. Most people who get sanctioned spend their time pointing fingers at others. Most people who don't get sanctioned make a priority of demonstrating that they possess sufficient self-control. This little thread ought to be a minor matter, easily and amicably resolved. Durova 10:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Which J word? Could you please be more specific? Anynobody 21:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You must mean "jerk". It was the nicest term I could apply to the conversation in question:

Template:Multicol

1 - 2
3 - 4
5 Template:Multicol-break 6 - 7
8 - 9
10 Template:Multicol-end

How would you describe his attitude in the conversation I am talking about? (Seriously) Anynobody 22:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image

You have an image that used CSS positioning to cover up the title of this page. That's very bad for usability and could confuse a user. I've taken the liberty of moving the image down slightly so the page title, (and important notices such as "this is a preview") will be visible. Jehochman 14:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That is an adequate solution. Would one of you please do the same on the user page. I am sorry that AN is taking this personally. I asked politely the first time (archived, I guess) and even started a petition to support his identity claim. I called it spoofing because, technically, that it what it is. That is hardly a harsh term like say, jerk. In my second post above I resisted the temptation to call him some name when he objected to my asking him to do something that I thought he understood that both myself and Durova had urged him to do. I repeated my request because I needed to get to the AN talk page and his images were covering up the redirect bypass and created unnecessary bother for me to get to that page. --Justanother 15:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now. The new version does look better. Justanother, although you may have a point about the technical definition, let's assume good faith and call this an honest misunderstanding. It would be a good thing all around if this becomes an example of how we're all able to work out the small stuff. Durova 20:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if we ran an RFCU on him, it would establish that he is running socks? That might help get his password reset and avoid this whole mess? Peace.Lsi john 21:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind having an WP:RFCU run on me, do whatever makes you comfortable. Anynobody 21:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't expect you'd mind. It was meant as a helpful suggestion to establish your identity as Anynobody. You already claim its a sock account. Peace.Lsi john 21:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I find your usage of the term sock puppet insulting. Re-examining your first post in light of this comment shows you are trying to cause trouble, or simply don't understand the term you used.

If you look at Misplaced Pages:Username policy#Doppelganger accounts you'll understand it's not a sockpuppet account but a doppleganger account. Also I should point out that sockpuppets are supposed to be secret accounts used to circumvent a policy. (Given the graphics that confused Justanother, I'm claiming to be Anynobody.)

I'd appreciate an apology for implying I am using a sock puppet, and if you'd add a refernce on your User page to Lsi admin(User talk:Lsi admin). (You also might consider removing the long wikibreak notice). Anynobody 21:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A quick search of this page reveals that you are the only one to have used the term 'puppet'. Peace.Lsi john 21:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Though after looking at some of your definitions, I can understand why you would be offended. I've seen NUMEROUS users who label their alternate accounts as 'sock of xyz'. So, I'm sorry you were offended. It was not intentional. To me.. sock = alternate account. Peace.Lsi john 21:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, they label their alternate accounts... "Alternate accounts". Where did I refer to it as a sock? Anynobody 21:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Why was it confusing?

People will now see two names Anynobody and Anyeverybody on each page. The idea of reducing confusion to me indicates removing disambiguation (which is what two User names are.) Like I said above, if it can be shown in a policy or guideline I would of course change my attitude. Otherwise I frankly don't see why I'd have to address the confusion of an editor who already knows of my existence; I geared the graphics and redirects to minimize confusion in editors who DON'T know me.

In my solution a "new" editor who sees a comment I made under the locked account in the past, said editor would click on my signature and be directed straight to the User page I'm now using. Since I am still signing Anynobody 21:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC), covering up the Anyeverybody and replacing it with File:Lockedmyselfout.gif, the editor would then have the whole story.

As it is now, new editors are probably more likely to be confused now than before. Anynobody 21:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot