Almost looks like he lost rudder control (hydraulic failure?) and was steering by varying engine thrust between the left/right engines. I wonder how many seat cushions had to be surgically removed after landing.

>> ^Payback:

Our modern "rotating barrel" sweepers require hydraulics and expensive, shop-only replacement parts, and have little utility for machetes OR kittens...


And they're made in China.

Valid, simple design, easy replacement of parts onsite. Whole thing probably cost $10, brand new, 75 years ago.

Our modern "rotating barrel" sweepers require hydraulics and expensive, shop-only replacement parts, and have little utility for machetes OR kittens...

Neato! I knew this thread had the could be a generator of information.

>> ^bareboards2:

From my ex-military pilot, currently sim military pilot trainer big brother, in response to this vid:
My Fuel Boom Operator Friend says the static discharge is no biggie, he would plug this guy and give him all the fuel he wants. He wouldn't let him close within a 1/2 mile without seeing him though. Once he sees him he will let the vis drop a bit more. He estimates the video is showing greater than 1/2 mile vis. Which means he would be closing on a radar return outside of the 1/2 mile point - skin paint only. The WX radar has to be off when he gets this close. Theoretically, the WX Radar might trigger a big boom.
I dumped fuel inflight in the vicinity of lightning once as we were in a world of hurt (Unsafe gear, no brakes, hydraulic leak all over said gear and brakes) - and there were no rules against it - and since I didn't blow up no new rules were written. This was my best opportunity to have my own WARNING in the aircraft manual - they are usually written in someone's blood.
I had an F-111 driver tell me the story about when he was frustrated with his wing man during a rejoin because his wingman couldn't find him in the weather at night. His dump mast was between the engines near the exhaust. So he hit dump, turned ff fuel dump, and then quickly went to afterburners. He claims the resulting fuel air blast could be seen with your eyes closed.

From my ex-military pilot, currently sim military pilot trainer big brother, in response to this vid:

My Fuel Boom Operator Friend says the static discharge is no biggie, he would plug this guy and give him all the fuel he wants. He wouldn't let him close within a 1/2 mile without seeing him though. Once he sees him he will let the vis drop a bit more. He estimates the video is showing greater than 1/2 mile vis. Which means he would be closing on a radar return outside of the 1/2 mile point - skin paint only. The WX radar has to be off when he gets this close. Theoretically, the WX Radar might trigger a big boom.

I dumped fuel inflight in the vicinity of lightning once as we were in a world of hurt (Unsafe gear, no brakes, hydraulic leak all over said gear and brakes) - and there were no rules against it - and since I didn't blow up no new rules were written. This was my best opportunity to have my own WARNING in the aircraft manual - they are usually written in someone's blood.

I had an F-111 driver tell me the story about when he was frustrated with his wing man during a rejoin because his wingman couldn't find him in the weather at night. His dump mast was between the engines near the exhaust. So he hit dump, turned ff fuel dump, and then quickly went to afterburners. He claims the resulting fuel air blast could be seen with your eyes closed.

Some of the trailers aren't quite built for what people use them for so they have to do a little extra to get stuff onto them. But the important thing about trailers is that they are meant to haul the weight you're putting on them and they have tie down points that secure what you're putting on them.

The shady "discount" operations usually haul equipment in a less than legal method and are rather dangerous on the roads in general. Whether or not they have newer equipment, if it ain't tied down, stuff goes bouncing off when they hit rough roads or have to make sudden stops/movements.

The problem I see with what this guy is doing is that he risks ripping the bed of his truck up by slapping his front bucket into the bed when he loads (especially the front), or gouging it when he unloads. Plus catching bad spots on the bed from dents and dings and making them worse. And his backhoe, people move them around all the time via the digging bucket and use the front bucket to pick the machine up regularly. However, he's got the ass of the machine coming in contact with the ground and if his backhoe is made like the one I've operated there are heavy hydraulic lines running right there. If he tears one of those lines in the process of doing this, he's looking at a really hard to replace line with it in that position and possibly causing damage to the machine.

And, those machines are strong enough to rip themselves apart if you rev them up like he's doing. So if he ever forgot to pull the legs up when loading into the truck, that machine would bend them or break them off..or damage the truck severely with the motor revved up like that. Makes for a good show to have the machine be all fast about lifting itself and what not, but it can cause a lot of damage before you realize it's doing so.

>> ^Spoon_Gouge:

Actually, This seems to be pretty common. Now, perhaps not into a dump truck, but my brother-in-law used to put both his shovel and his backhoe on the trailer using this same method. The shovel has bulldozer tracks so gets the front end up, turns the crane around and the crawls onto the trailer using the showel to jack up the ass end. The backhoe, however, goes on just as shown here.

Looks like "Energy in Depth" is another bullshit oil industry front group.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_in_Depth

Energy in Depth (EID) is a pro-oil-and-gas drilling industry front group formed by the American Petroleum Institute, the Petroleum Association of America and dozens of additional industry organizations for the purpose of denouncing legislation proposed by Colorado U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette to regulate underground hydraulic fracturing fluids. Hydraulic fracturing of underground geological formations, commonly called "fracking," was invented by the Halliburton Company. It is done to increase the amounts of oil and gas that can be extracted from existing wells. [1]

Energy in Depth denounces DeGette's proposed fracking legislation as an “unnecessary financial burden on a single small-business industry, American oil and natural gas producers.” In June, 2009, Energy in Depth started a multimillion dollar lobbying and public relations campaign aimed at derailing public health legislation that would require the disclosure of the chemicals used in fracking fluids. In addition to a Web site, EID's campaign includes a Twitter feed, a Facebook group, a YouTube channel and an aggressive advertising campaign. [1]

Energy in Depth trumpets the economic contribution oil and gas drilling makes, and the numbers of people employed by the industry.

>> ^wagthedog1:

>> ^nanrod:
I know this is all bullshit because T. Boone Pickens was on the Daily Show and he assured me that no water well has ever been contaminated by fracking. He wouldn't lie would he?

And neither would Lee Fuller, executive director of Energy in Depth, who has told the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences that a litany of errors in the anti-drilling film should render it ineligible for the Oscar for best documentary feature.
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011
/02/01/01greenwire-ioil-and-gas-group-urges-oscar-judges-to-steer-99256.html
Besides, it is good that North Americans are once again getting a small taste of what many petro-states have have to endure over the decades to fuel a lifestyle of excess.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Doesn't Universal Studios still have a 'Waterworld' stunt show? Why not close that down instead?


Not sure they still have the Waterworld stunt show. But it doesn't matter really, because when they replaced Back to the Future with the Simpson's ride it was because both were simulator rides, so they could probably reuse some of the old IMAX screens and projectors, and the hydraulics machines.

Biker "Hey."

Moose "Sup?"

B "Just cruisin', gonna chill a bit."

M "Cool."

B "Cool."

M "Whoa... Dude, are those the new Avid X0 hydraulic brakes?"

B "Yeah, just got them off eBay. Tryin' 'em out."

M "Sweet. Oh shit, that was my mom bellowing, gotta bounce."

B "Seeya."

M "Peace."

Pretty sure the hydraulic version works the same way, only uses a turbine to spin the gear that drives the piston.

This is perfectly normal procedure when a plane has to return to/land at an airport when heavily laden with fuel. It's not to reduce the risk of explosions on landing impact, it's simply because the plane is too heavy to land with all that fuel on board. Planes have a maximum landing weight that the aircraft body and landing gear can withstand, and this weight is always less than the maximum take off weight. So, if a plane has to make an emergency landing (in this case due to a hydraulic issue), they need to dump the fuel to get it below the maximum landing weight.

Saying that, fuel dumping normally occurs out at sea (for coastal airports) or over uninhabited land. However in this case, that could obviously not be done.

... in an emergency (as in the plane could potentially crash), fuel dumping is the last thing on the pilot's mind... what if the pilot dumps the fuel and recovers from the emergency? He may have dumped too much fuel to get to the nearest airport.
>> ^ponceleon:

Interesting but I have to wonder whether it is a matter of an emergency. Ultimately if a plane is having an emergency and can dump the fuel to reduce risk of explosions on impact (or elsewhere) I don't see a problem. I'd rather have a plane with little fuel falling out of the sky than a plane full of fuel falling out of the sky.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Norsuelefantti.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by geo321. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Hydraulics-Work-Too-Well-on-this-Low-Rider

*Dupeof this video