OK, hold the fucking phone here. This video is just a disaster. It is flippant and glossing over the facts of what actually happened. This story is a favorite of mine, so I have done a lot a reading on it.

This happened in 1983 (36 years ago).

>> Do planes seriously not have a fuel gauge?

There is specifically a digital fuel gauge processor on that plane, and it was malfunctioning. There was an inductor coil that wasn't properly soldered onto the circuit board. At that time, planes were allowed to fly without a functioning digital fuel gauge as long as there was a manual check of the fuel in tanks and the computer was told the starting fuel.

The problem is that fuel trucks pump by volume and planes measure fuel by weight. The fueling truck converted the volume to kilograms and then converted to pounds. He should not have used both. In 1983 ground crews were used to converting volume to pounds. The 767 was the first plane in Air Canada's fleet to have metric fuel gauges.

The line in the video "the flight crew approved of the fuel without noticing the error" glosses over how it is actually done. The pilot was passed a form that contained the numbers and calculations from the ground crew that stated that 22,300 kg of fuel was loaded on the plane. The math was wrong, but unless the pilots re-did the numbers by hand, there wouldn't be anything to jump out at them. He accepted the form and punched those numbers in to the computer.

The 767 was one of the first planes to eliminate the Flight Engineer position and replace it with a computer. There was no clear owner as to who does the fuel calc in this situation. In this case, it fell to the ground crew.

>> I would hope there is a nit more of a warning system than the engines shutting off.

If there was a functional digital fuel gauge, it would have showed them missing half their fuel from the start, and the error would have been caught. Because there wasn't, the computer was calculating and displaying the amount of fuel based on an incorrect start value.

That is another problem with this video. It states that "they didn't even think about it until ... and an alarm went off signalling that their left engine had quit working."

Fuck you, narrator asshole.

In this case, low fuel pump pressure warnings were firing off before the engines shut down. They were investigating why they would be getting these low pressure warnings when their calculated fuel values (based on the original error) showed that they had enough fuel.

>> I can't believe the pilot's were given an award for causing an avoidable accident.

The pilots did not cause it. They followed all the proper procedures applicable at that time, 1983. It was only due to their skill and quick thinking that the pilots landed the plane without any serious injuries to passengers.

They ran simulations in Vancouver of this exact fuel and flight situation and all the crews that ran this simulation crashed their planes.

"Bad math can kill you." Flippant, correct, but still not quite applicable to this situation. Air Canada did not provide any conversion training for dealing with kilograms and the 767. Not the ground crew, nor the pilots, were trained how to handle it. They were expected to "figure it out". That, and the elimination of the Flight Engineer position, set these situations up for disaster.

What's interesting is most subdural hematomas are venous bleeds (low pressure). This clearly had arterial bleeding, which is more consistent with epidural hematomas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydride_compressor

Looks like this particular setup holds the hydrogen chemically, and only releases it when heated. You're thinking it's just a pressurized cylinder, when it's actually a chemical compound inside.

Like he said in the video, (1:00) you can cut the cylinder in half, light it, and the hydrogen leaking out would make a birthday candle look like a flame thrower. "Smoulder like a cigarette."

It's severely awesome, the hydride "sucks" in hydrogen at low pressures, stores it safely, then pushes the gas out at high pressure if heated. Certainly no MORE dangerous than the petroleum based fuel that our cars run on now. Gasoline certainly vapourizes and explodes when heated.

I kept cringing waiting for something bad to happen to the coke can guy. I don't like things under pressure and I refuse to work on even low pressure gas lines at my house. I don't like being near propane or oxygen tanks. Maybe I've played too many video games.

My initial suspicion was the same as the host's - that the bottle was rocketing up and the cap was "overrun" by the rest of the bottle. That doesn't hold up to scrutiny since the cap "shrinks" back rather than staying still.

In their first explosion, the cap actually explodes very quickly after the burst. That seems relevant. I'm not sure how.

My second thought is along the "vacuum\low pressure" line of thinking. The entire bottle is pressurized in the instant of the explosion, and then ruptures at the bottom, so now the bottom of the bottle is lower pressure as water is rushing out, pulling the cap end down. Bernoulli principle, perhaps?
I imagine a bottle full of water, but it has no bottom. The water is rapidly and forcibly evacuated. The logical thing is for the cap to be crumpled downward.

Ooh, wait. Could this have something to do with the gas at the top of the bottle vs the liquid? I'm having flashbacks to the Mythbusters episode about the sinking car, and how the pressure of the water inside the car was lower than the outside as long as significant amount of air was left in the vehicle, so even though the water was up past the inside of the car door, it still couldn't be pushed open until the rest of the car had equalized. This seems relevant to me as well, though I'm not sure how, exactly.

I think this guy's reasoning is solid about all of the observed phenomena. I think cavitation is the correct explanation for the top of the bottling being sucked in. It's non-intuitive, but I think it's pretty clear that the explosion creates some very low pressure areas.

>> ^Quboid:

I think it was a joke.
Is it that unreasonable anyway? People seem to be assuming that if it's not a joke, that he means windows that passengers can wind down like a car but obviously they'd be locked except when in an emergency and the plane is less than 10,000 feet up. If the plane is on the runway and it fills with smoke, being able to open the windows might help. Or it might bring in more oxygen and make the fire much worse...


I agree. He was joking, and I actually don't think it's that stupid an idea, either. Sure, as he articulated it, it sounds like a stupid idea. You don't want a hand crank on every window (although I've been in commercial airliner cockpits that DO have such a thing).

But maybe it IS a problem that airliners don't have a way to rapidly vent the cabin and cockpit with fresh (yes, low pressure and cold) air. It won't be comfortable at 15,000 ft, but it could save lives. Smoke in an airplane is a serious issue.

>> ^kymbos:

You're all fake!


hehe

also check this out someone already did a flapping one man flier ..probably on sift
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/emergingtech/human-powered-flapping-wing-plane-first-ever-to-take-flight-video/2388

"Built from carbon fiber, foam, and balsa wood, the Snowbird weighs just 94 lbs. and has a wingspan of 105 feet, which is comparable to that of a Boeing 737–amazingly, the Snowbird weighs less than all of the pillows on board.

The wings’ thrust is due primarily to a low-pressure region around the leading edge, which integrates to provide a force known as “leading-edge suction”. The wings also passively twist in response to the flapping. This is due to a structure that is torsionally compliant in just the right amount to allow efficient thrusting (”aeroelastic tailoring”). It should be noted, though, that twisting is required only to prevent flow separation on sections along the wing. It does not produce thrust in the same way as required by sharp-edged wings with little leading-edge suction."

One thing I never understood about climbing mount everest is, why put yourself through such extreme conditions, why not use a pressurized full body suit? I'm guessing the low pressure/oxygen levels is what's killing most people at that altitude.

If you think that's cheating, then why doesn't anyone ever climb mt. everest naked?

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

Faaaaaaaaaaa-gasps for breath-aaaaaaaaaaaake!
I make it's the 40 Yard line Rackers is kicking from. Last season he hit 2 of 4 kicks in the 40-49 range.
Yes, it's not during a game with blockers etc., but if he could manage that accuracy in non-game situations he'd be able to hit 4 for 4 through the crossbars in a game.


I suspect the way this has been made is to leave the viewer in doubt about the veracity of the stunts. But pressure in a game can drastically impair performance because it has real, measurable physiological affects on players.

So I can totally see a lot of players pulling off insane stunts in a low pressure, controlled, friendly environment. Making that crucial kick when everything is on the line? Different story.

Suction doesn't imply any type of pulling force... it's just the flow of a fluid from high pressure to low pressure, so it technically implies a pushing force.

I think people generally think of suction as a pulling force because actions like sucking on a straw use a pulling motion to produce a low pressure in the mouth, even though the fluid is pushed into the mouth by (usually) atmospheric pressure.

>> ^Deano:

When you say "flush" what does that mean? Dab with a wet towel or spray water in large quantities at the face?
I think I would be useful in this situation given as you state that water isn't always the most appropriate first treatment.
>> ^NordlichReiter:
Man, this seems to happen more and more. Do I need to learn how to deal with this as a potential first responder?
http://www.revolutionhealth.com/articles/first-aid-for-chemical
-burns/sig256946
Have someone call 911 and you call National Poison Control Hotline (1-800-222-1222) for assistance identifying the type of chemical you are dealing with.
If acid is in the eyes rinse with low pressure water, large amounts of water. If there is acid on the eyes, it's to late to worry about what will happen when the water contacts the chemical at least that is my take on the whole affair. Remember I'm not a lawyer or a professional emergency medical responder but at any given moment anyone can become a first responder. The best thing you can do is keep the victim under as much control as possible so as not to cause anymore damage.

Chemical burns not rinsed with water
Some chemical burns are made worse if rinsed (flushed) with water.
Carbolic acid or phenol does not mix with water, so use isopropyl (rubbing) alcohol first to flush the chemical off the skin and then flush with water. If alcohol is not available, flush with a large amount of water. Do not flush the eye with alcohol.
Sulfuric acid is flushed with a mild, soapy solution if the burns are not severe. Sulfuric acid feels hot when water is added to the acid, but it is better to flush the area and not leave the acid on the skin.
Hydrofluoric acid is flushed with a bicarbonate of soda (baking soda) solution. (Use a small amount of water to make solution.) Then flush with a large amount of water. Burns from this acid may not show at first, so flush the area even if a burn is not seen. Do not flush the eye itself with a baking soda solution.
Dry powders, such as dry lime, are brushed away first, because adding water can make a liquid that burns. After the powder is brushed away, flush with water for 20 minutes.
http://www.revolutionhealth.com/articles/first-aid-for-chemical
-burns/sig256946

>> ^NordlichReiter:

Man, this seems to happen more and more. Do I need to learn how to deal with this as a potential first responder?
http://www.revolutionhealth.com/articles/first-aid-for-chemical
-burns/sig256946
Have someone call 911 and you call National Poison Control Hotline (1-800-222-1222) for assistance identifying the type of chemical you are dealing with.
If acid is in the eyes rinse with low pressure water, large amounts of water. If there is acid on the eyes, it's to late to worry about what will happen when the water contacts the chemical at least that is my take on the whole affair. Remember I'm not a lawyer or a professional emergency medical responder but at any given moment anyone can become a first responder. The best thing you can do is keep the victim under as much control as possible so as not to cause anymore damage.

Chemical burns not rinsed with water
Some chemical burns are made worse if rinsed (flushed) with water.
Carbolic acid or phenol does not mix with water, so use isopropyl (rubbing) alcohol first to flush the chemical off the skin and then flush with water. If alcohol is not available, flush with a large amount of water. Do not flush the eye with alcohol.
Sulfuric acid is flushed with a mild, soapy solution if the burns are not severe. Sulfuric acid feels hot when water is added to the acid, but it is better to flush the area and not leave the acid on the skin.
Hydrofluoric acid is flushed with a bicarbonate of soda (baking soda) solution. (Use a small amount of water to make solution.) Then flush with a large amount of water. Burns from this acid may not show at first, so flush the area even if a burn is not seen. Do not flush the eye itself with a baking soda solution.
Dry powders, such as dry lime, are brushed away first, because adding water can make a liquid that burns. After the powder is brushed away, flush with water for 20 minutes.
http://www.revolutionhealth.com/articles/first-aid-for-chemical
-burns/sig256946

When you say "flush" what does that mean? Dab with a wet towel or spray water in large quantities at the face?
I think I would be useful in this situation given as you state that water isn't always the most appropriate first treatment.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

Man, this seems to happen more and more. Do I need to learn how to deal with this as a potential first responder?
http://www.revolutionhealth.com/articles/first-aid-for-chemical
-burns/sig256946
Have someone call 911 and you call National Poison Control Hotline (1-800-222-1222) for assistance identifying the type of chemical you are dealing with.
If acid is in the eyes rinse with low pressure water, large amounts of water. If there is acid on the eyes, it's to late to worry about what will happen when the water contacts the chemical at least that is my take on the whole affair. Remember I'm not a lawyer or a professional emergency medical responder but at any given moment anyone can become a first responder. The best thing you can do is keep the victim under as much control as possible so as not to cause anymore damage.

Chemical burns not rinsed with water
Some chemical burns are made worse if rinsed (flushed) with water.
Carbolic acid or phenol does not mix with water, so use isopropyl (rubbing) alcohol first to flush the chemical off the skin and then flush with water. If alcohol is not available, flush with a large amount of water. Do not flush the eye with alcohol.
Sulfuric acid is flushed with a mild, soapy solution if the burns are not severe. Sulfuric acid feels hot when water is added to the acid, but it is better to flush the area and not leave the acid on the skin.
Hydrofluoric acid is flushed with a bicarbonate of soda (baking soda) solution. (Use a small amount of water to make solution.) Then flush with a large amount of water. Burns from this acid may not show at first, so flush the area even if a burn is not seen. Do not flush the eye itself with a baking soda solution.
Dry powders, such as dry lime, are brushed away first, because adding water can make a liquid that burns. After the powder is brushed away, flush with water for 20 minutes.
http://www.revolutionhealth.com/articles/first-aid-for-chemical
-burns/sig256946

Man, this seems to happen more and more. Do I need to learn how to deal with this as a potential first responder?

http://www.revolutionhealth.com/articles/first-aid-for-chemical-burns/sig256946

Have someone call 911 and you call National Poison Control Hotline (1-800-222-1222) for assistance identifying the type of chemical you are dealing with.

If acid is in the eyes rinse with low pressure water, large amounts of water. If there is acid on the eyes, it's to late to worry about what will happen when the water contacts the chemical at least that is my take on the whole affair. Remember I'm not a lawyer or a professional emergency medical responder but at any given moment anyone can become a first responder. The best thing you can do is keep the victim under as much control as possible so as not to cause anymore damage.

Chemical burns not rinsed with water

Some chemical burns are made worse if rinsed (flushed) with water.

* Carbolic acid or phenol does not mix with water, so use isopropyl (rubbing) alcohol first to flush the chemical off the skin and then flush with water. If alcohol is not available, flush with a large amount of water. Do not flush the eye with alcohol.
* Sulfuric acid is flushed with a mild, soapy solution if the burns are not severe. Sulfuric acid feels hot when water is added to the acid, but it is better to flush the area and not leave the acid on the skin.
* Hydrofluoric acid is flushed with a bicarbonate of soda (baking soda) solution. (Use a small amount of water to make solution.) Then flush with a large amount of water. Burns from this acid may not show at first, so flush the area even if a burn is not seen. Do not flush the eye itself with a baking soda solution.
* Dry powders, such as dry lime, are brushed away first, because adding water can make a liquid that burns. After the powder is brushed away, flush with water for 20 minutes.

http://www.revolutionhealth.com/articles/first-aid-for-chemical-burns/sig256946