which day did BT complete the EE takeover? Am I right in thinking yesterday?
Has a techie shown his disgust by pulling the plug? A real life BOFH in the heart of BT?
3849 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Nov 2014
"In the days before fibre broadband, BT Retail didn't use the DSL username+password stuff that practically every other ISP used, they simply checked that the line ID presented to the kit was a valid line ID for BT Broadband."
not quite true - it did need a user name and password. But username could be anything@btbroadband.com
Us contractors for BT usually set them up as user= "btuser@btbroadband.com" with password "btuser"
That worked on all BT domestic connections
"As for the probabilities of losing engines, well it looks like you're assuming that the probabilities are independent - I'd suggest that in most cases of multiple failure they aren't."
Correct - that is my assumption. But if you want to look at non-independent failure then the four-jet fares even worse because of the risk of uncontained turbine failure, or an engine fire, taking out the adjacent engine. That's not possible in a trijet
"But the fourth engine gave the plane a significant safety advantage in that it would retain much greater propulsion power if one of the engines failed."
not really true
If you lose two engines on a three engined aircraft you're going to crash
If you lose two engines on a four engined aircraft you are probably also going to crash
the probability of losing two engines on a four engined craft is higher than that of losing two on a three engined craft. Now, which is safer?
"and also managed to denigrate every person out there who might aspire to either a car with a bit more room for whatever reason, or something with a little power because you know, they actually enjoy driving."
Good, you got the message. Its that sense of automatic "entitlement" again which people use to self-justify irresponsible acts such as overusing the earths resources. Driving overlarge vehicles too fast is one such example.
"A large vehicle or more power does NOT equate with irresponsible hooniness (or is that hoonism?)"
I don't know the word "hooniness", but if I did I'm certain I would disagree. Large vehicles and more power both equate to selfish use of resources, and increased risk on the road to others
"Most people of my acquaintance, admittedly not a large scientific survey, usually acquire larger or more powerful vehicles simply because they've decided that it gives them a bit more comfort when driving."
There are a lot of smaller vehicles out there which have perfectly adequate performance and comfort levels for driving, even long range. Insisting that a large vehicle is required for such tasks is self-delusional
"The Tornado was reported to be *off-course*"
No such concept as "off course" on a military flying exercise. They have a start point and a destination. There are certain areas which are off-bounds such as big cities. Otherwise at low level they have free reign to go wherever seems best at the time. In this case, one Tornado went west of Farleton Fell, one east. No issues, thats how things work. At the time it was a regular sight. Nowadays they tend to take a more challenging path up the Lune Valley and Lune Gorge, but that's because there are fewer aircraft flying so they can all take the difficult route.
In this particular case, they were following a slightly different route and time path than originally intended because Tornado #2 was unable to use its bombing slot at Donna Nook due to conflicting aircraft, so they rerouted to drop some bombs in Scotland instead.
1) The Tornado was a GR1. NO air-to-air radar. The radar fit is ground imaging only
2) The report clearly says that the JetRanger would not have been visible to the Tornado crew until AT MOST 17 seconds before impact. In reality probably 5 seconds. That assumes the pilot wasn't having to look at altimeter data, change radio settings, change engine thrust or one of a myriad other tasks which would have taken his eyes in the wrong direction. In this particular case he was worried that the other Tornado in the formation was on the other side of Tarleton Fell, and the two were likely to be on a collision course when they reached the north end of the fell. His concentration would have been set on that potential impact. In reality whats five seconds? Head down, head up, bang you're dead.
Read the report. Its all in there. Along with the fact that the helicopter company had found the reporting advisory scheme unworkable so had abandoned it - so the military had no knowledge of the helicopters presence. So whose blame was it?
Read the report before you post again. So at least if you want to spout bullshit, at least its informed bullshit.
just rereading that full report, and theres some interesting stuff there
first they say that to have had a chance to see the JetRanger, the Tornado pilot would have had to be sweeping his head left-right every five seconds, at the same time trying to avoid sightline blocks. On a multi-hour flight, not practical
Secondly, the JetRanger would have remained invisible to the Tornado until at earliest 17 seconds before impact. - and more probably just 5 seconds
So, if something the size of a JetRanger is damned invisible until its too late to take action, what chance has a pilot of seeing and reacting to a small drone in front of him?
All those who are saying its up to the pilot to see and avoid the drone are nothing short of stupid idiots
Just found online the summary of the report of the Farleton crash
As I thought, there was no notification process in place to advise the military of the presence of the helicopter (which was on a pipeline inspection - not pylons)
http://bit.ly/1NMxeb9 -summary report
http://bit.ly/1TxmpB2 -full report
The Tarleton helicopter crash isn't really a good example.
It was due to a combination of a low-level high speed military aircraft, and a helicopter at low level doing an electricity pylon survey. Due to the ground contours, the low levels and the aircraft attitudes both were in each others blind spots. But even if the Tornado pilot had seen the helicopter, at that speed and level there probably would not have been time to take avoiding action.
The real cause was the fact that a civilian aircraft was at low level in a military low flying zone, on a flying day. The only thing that could have stopped the crash was a warning to the military by the helicopter inspection team that they intended to be there that day, so enabling the Tornado to reroute.
"One word: Ekranoplan"
bad example. The Ekranoplans all had boat hulls with wingtip stabilisers and were stable in the water
Also the engines (on most) were not wing mounted, but instead set high on the hull above the wing level to avoid spray
" a 747 can't land on (rough) landing strips or gravel runways"
actually it shouldn't be too difficult to convert the 747 design to do that.....
the original plans were based on a competing concept for the C-5 Galaxy and would have had rough field capability
whether existing aircraft could be converted is unlikely, but new builds probably could be without too much hassle. It just needs the demand - which at present isn't there
"Hmm. I wonder which route all the Lockheed Galaxies I used to see at FFM airport took?"
Not many people to get out of a cargo plane, so the risk is less. And military families tend not to sue when their loved ones get killed, unlike civilian passengers......
As has been said elsewhere, there are valid technical reasons for using high wing designs on military aircraft: the reduced risk of FOD outweighs the increased risk of sea loss
" big, Russian, "Flying Cranes"."
They were actually built in the USA by Sikorsky, who was Russian by origin but very much part of the USA industrial complex
To be precise the S-64 SkyCrane, which in military service became the CH-54 Tarhe
The design has now been sold off and someone else still has them in limited production
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-64_Skycrane
"pretty but incompetent sports car, "
what makes you say the Jensen Intercepter was incompetent?
I'm not criticising you, just genuinely interested in what you thought was wrong.
Any comments on the 4x4 version with the Ferguson transmission? I always thought that would be an interesting beast to drive
a few months back in another thread there was a very passionate description of a Land Rover roll over accident in which a chap watched his whole family die. When a land rover rolls with any kind of energy the whole body comes apart like a wet cardboard box. They're not safe. Never were, never can be.
just a shame that the new Mokes don't meet USA or European safety laws
No room for the airbags
No ABS
I'm guessing the crash resistance tests were probably poor as well........
really a vehicle like that should be given approval checks more like those of a motorbike, not a full sized car
Who's the naive prat who financed the survey? Anyone with a brain could have predicted the results.
Countries with a technical infrastructure (electricity, phones, internet) use electronic money
Those who haven't, don't.
And those with the least technology i.e. those with no mains water, no sewerage, no permanent roads, are the least likely to use electronic money. And those with the least are a bloody big proportion of the worlds population
Looking at it from another angle, the push to use electronic money, even among the worlds poor, is just another form of taxation. But a taxation from the corporate system, not a taxation of government.. It represents another step in the corporate usurpation of government