Multiple countries have already bypassed normal procedure and regulations in order to fast track and go straight to human testing.

So I was unclear; did the gear end up doing a gravity drop? Or did the pilot in the front cockpit initiate an emergency procedure like with a spare reservoir or something?

*promote

No Bob. Wrong again. Some were background witnesses that prove the mindset....removing a top diplomat known internationally for her anti corruption successes in the manner he did it was like like photos of Trump dismantling video cameras the night before he robbed his own bank, they don't prove he did it, and he has the right to remove them, but it's still good evidence he was planning the crime. There were also direct witnesses to his actions, and what the Ukrainians were saying.
We get more direct witnesses today, including numerous professionals who were listening in on the phone calls.

Most leaks have come directly from the Whitehouse, and a never ending stream from Giuliani, but he used them. Secondly, what exactly was he so worried might leak about his perfect phone calls that he needed to create a secret non governmental channel to do foreign policy based on ridiculous false claims from criminal Ukrainians who paid him for access, then hide all evidence behind a top secret clearance firewall? Could it be because the State Department had already debunked both theories thoroughly, or because the payments from Russian tied Ukrainians was totally illegal, as is selling American policy to the highest foreign bidders? Next excuse.

Bob, you know the Republicans aren't asking about the facts or offering a defense, but are only using their time to make false statements about Biden and the witnesses, and to whine about the process they themselves designed, right?

...and you add a video from rabid nutbag Jordan why? His animated blatherings were only designed to confuse and obfuscate, and had no logical bearing on the procedure. His rapid fire naming players only works on morons who can't follow along, anyone with an iq above 80 understands Songland was revising his testimony because others testified he was lying. Taylor recalled having been told by Songland's staff, Mr Morrison, about Songlands conversations with Mr Yarmack, a Ukrainian official, about meetings with Zelensky and Pence (and what he told Yarmack was the meeting was conditional on an investigation announcement over Biden, not Burisma or corruption, and it was cancelled because there was no such public announcement). Mr Morrison would testify the same, so Songland had to admit the conversation happened. Hilariously, until that admission, Songland was your guy, now you guys pretend you can't follow one sentence if it has 5 names in it. This from the guy who brought you Benghazi, numerous closed door secret investigations over nonsense with zero evidence or corroboration. *facepalm

Btw, Zelensky had a scheduled interview to announce his Biden investigation in a quid pro quo for the funding release, but the illegal funding hold and related extortion was discovered publicly first and the scheme fell apart days before he gave the interview, which he cancelled as soon as the funds were released and the extortion plot ruined. If he wasn't being extorted, he would have had that interview anyway.

Funny how they repeatedly use their time to complain about not being allowed to ask questions (a total lie btw) in closed door sessions or to make false accusations against others like Biden or Schiff instead of asking questions about this case....even the Republican lawyer. It's like they have no defense....oh, wait.

Keep laughing. I know Jordan being the best you've got gives me a chuckle. Rational people see him as the total nutjob he is.

[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]

So, he was treated the same way any police officer would have treated him in the same situation. And now he's suing?

If you want to blame anything, blame his training. What was the procedure when a person with a gun enters the premises? Because the Officer was there on personal business, and not on official duty.

Nicely sterile cockpit (safest best procedure)--and I'm allowing for how he instructs his (female?) first officer in the location of the annoying new buildings ("See how they are in the way?") on the descent. Thank you for sharing this!

Massive breach of procedure. We were taught in concealed carry school that the only person that should touch our concealed weapon in a police situation is the police. You keep your hands visible and NEVER touch the gun, even if the cops tell you to.

The ones that fired should be kicked off the force and banned from law enforcement. They should also get charged for his death and go to jail. This is just as bad as the cop that shot the drunk guy because they had him knee walking towards them and his pants were falling down. Guy reached to pull up his pants and got AR-15'ed to death.

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.

I sincerely believe any "sound mind and body" adult who proclaims this crap should be banned from any medical procedure or medicine. ESPECIALLY over the counter remedies.

I exclude the certifiably insane, the developmentally delayed, and the children of these entitled shit stains. The religious aren't insane, or particularly stupid, they're just wrong.

it's called a foldback mix. standard operating procedure in the studio. why they're using MTH-A50s is the real question.

Why is the junk science of chiropractic still a thing? It's like homeopathy.

Any "medical procedure" that claims to rid the body of cancers by causing gases to forcibly be extracted from cartilage is the worst form of snake oil.

I quite like what they do in India. Incentives for men to get the snip, and whatever the equivalent procedure is for women. E.g. get a vasectomy, and the government buys you a new car.

No more accidental children (which is what makes up the majority of births). You can imagine that most people taking this offer up are typically going to be people who should not be having children, so it's a huge win for humanity.

Also externalising pregnancy to incubators would ensure that career focused families need not miss out on having children - particularly if they have their sperm and eggs frozen before they are sterilized. They can then have healthy cells ready for when they are ready, providing their children with a better environment to grow up in...... Without the health concerns for the mother, and without the health concerns for the baby (like alcohol and smoking while pregnant, or even mothers with type 2 diabetes, which is a huge problem these days because of what it does to the fetus).

Fewer bad parents, and a larger amount of deserving parents would really tip the scales for a better future in just a couple of generations.

Can we please first either make the same request for humans or enact the same 1 in 1 out procedure?
If you're concerned about overpopulation, humans are far worse than puppies in every way.

Its kind of comical how terrified american police officers always appear in these videos. The contrast between the police officer and the woman's composure is too much, they may want to consider improving their selection procedure and training techniques.

the elephant in the room, and no one wants to admit it right or left, is that the history of police /judicial systems has never been good. Im not saying it to advocate for anarchy but basically everywhere, always, police abuse their power, while preventing very little crime / providing justice. I dont pretend to know all of history, but I never get much of a response when I say this and I thinks its because power corrupts no matter what, and there will always be minority others to justify abusing. The very very best you can hope for is to have enough oversight so as to make the corruption spread out, obscure, and minimal but even then...

For a long time I thought the US police was at least more effective in closing cases but between the US getting its ass kicked in the drug war despite the militarized police and a report I saw about poor coordination across state lines leading to murders and missing persons cases going unresolved for decades

Of course rape can occur at any point leading up to and even during the act. If you have penetrated your partner and they say stop, you stop.

However, I would ask what other evidence could there possibly be? Obviously we can't know, but one would assume that a motivated prosecutor would have gathered all possible evidence. We know from the victim's statements that she can't recall much of the night, is unsure she said yay or nay during the sex, but that she didn't think he should have been prosecuted. Her roommates are the ones that reported the 'rape', but they clearly didn't give any evidence the court saw as worth convicting on. If their statements were what USC went by to expel him, that would be available via the court and I'm sure someone would have posted them.

We simply do not know and can only go by the video and the statement of the 'victim'. She seemed to be walking fine and signed her name correctly, so either she is an extremely functional drunk or she was sober enough to make those choices. She said she didn't think he should have been charged with rape. To me, that should exonerate the defendant. It did in a court of law, but not in a closed off Title IX hearing.

I suspect that what happened is what happens in other colleges. The college determines what is going to look worse publicity wise and litigation wise, then expels based on that. The problem is that in the Title IX process, there is no real fairness. You can have an advisor present, but not a lawyer if the school objects. One person decides your fate. There is no appeal process. The burden of proof is not defined as to who it is upon. I am sure that the lady in charge went by some procedure and not merely off personal opinion/belief, but we can't investigate to find that out.

To sum up, are we at the point where we should not have intimate relations if either person has imbibed any type of substance? Should we request that a video camera or audio recorder be present at any sexual liaison? Do we need witnesses like they used to have at the consummation of royal weddings? Perhaps a written contract? It just seems pretty ludicrous to me to have a video and the statement of the person that was supposed to have been raped, yet somehow we still had a punishment given to the individual accused of the raping.