This beer is responsible for 97% of my drunk txts and regrettable fb posts...

I did a little amateur investigation, a bit of reading and some numbers but you can skip to the bottom for a summary.

The plane is a Stinson 108-3, 16500 foot service ceiling, 2400 pound gross weight limit (1300 empty weight), 50 gallon fuel capacity. Thats about 1100 of useful weight (2400-1300), with full fuel that lowers it to 800 (6lbs per gallon*50 gallons=300lbs), I saw 3 men in there the 4th passenger I'm gonna assume male, so lets say 180lbs for each (200 for the pilot) that comes to 740lbs for passenger weight. That leaves 60lbs for cargo. Although I couldn't see the cargo, they were still close to the weight limit but still could have been within normal limits.

The airport Bruce Meadows (U63) has a field elevation of 6370 feet. I couldnt find the airport temperature for that day but I did find nearby Stanley Airport 23 Miles southeast of Bruce Meadows. Their METAR history shows a high of 27 Celsius/81 Fahrenheit for June 30, 2012. Definitely a hot day but was it too hot? The closest I could find on performance data shows a 675 Feet per Minute climb at 75 Fahrenheit at sea level. Thats pretty close to what many small planes of that nature can do, so I took those numbers and transposed them over what a Cessna 172N could do. The 172N has a slighty higher climb performance about 750 for sea level and 75 Fahrenheit, a difference of 75 feet ill subtract out. At 6000 feet at 27C/81F the 172N climbs at 420FPM. Taking out the 75 feet brings it to 345 FPM, now I know this isn't perfect but I'm going with what I have. The plane began its climb out at 1:13 and crashed at 2:55, that leaves 1 minute and 42 seconds in between or 1.7 minutes. 1.7*345 means about 590 feet possible gain. But the plane isn't climbing at its best the entire video, at 2:35 it is apparent something is giving it trouble, that brings it down to about 1.58 minutes climb time which is 545 feet. Theres still another factor to consider and thats how consistent the altitude at the ground was.

The runway at Bruce meadows faces at 05/23 (Northeast/Southwest) but most likely he took runway 23 (Southwest) as immediately to the north east theres a wildlife preserve (Gotta fly at least 2000 feet over it) and he flew straight for quite some time. Although the ground increases in the direction he flew, by how much is difficult using the sectional charts. That means that although he may have been able to climb to about 545 feet higher than his original ground altitude, the ground rose with him and his absolute altitude over the ground would be less than that maximum possible 545. The passenger in the rear reported the plane could only climb to about 60-70 feet above the trees. The trees looked to be around 75-100 but thats still difficult to tell. That would mean according to the passenger they might have only been about 170 feet off the ground. It could still be wildly off as we cant exactly see the altimeter.

Finally theres that disturbance at 2:35 described as a downdraft. It could have been windshear, or a wind effect from the mountains. I don't have too much hands on knowledge of mountain flying so I cant say. If it was windshear he might have suddenly lost a headwind and got a tailwind, screwing up his performance. It could have been a downdraft effect. The actual effect on the aircraft may not have been much (lets say 50 feet) but near obstacles it was definitely enough to have a negative impact.



Summary:

Yes he was flying pretty heavy but he may not have been over the weight limit

The temperature in the area was definitely hotter than standard and the altitude was high, but he still had climbing capabilities within service limits. However he didn't give himself much of a safety threshold.

He might have been able to climb about 545 feet higher than the runway elevation, but the terrain altitude rose in the direction he flew, so his actual altitude over the ground was probably smaller than that.

The disturbance at 2:35 might have been some form of windshear which has the capacity to reduce airplane performance, and with his margins of safety so low already, that could have been the final factor.

Basically he may very well have been flying within the service limits of the aircraft, but the margins of safety he left himself were very low and the decision to fly over obstacles like those trees in that mountain enviroment could be the reason this would be declared pilot error.

Other notes:

The takeoff looks pretty rough but he trying to get off the ground as quickly as he can and ride ground effect until he gets up to speed.

I cant find anything resembling a proper PoH for this aircraft but I did find some data that looks pretty close to it. However this aircraft was a model from the late 40s, so the standards of performance may not be the same as now, and the transcribing I did to the 172N could be thrown off more.

On that note, I do realize that a 172 would have different aerobatic effects with altutude and temperature than a Stinson 108, but its the closest data I could use.

I also couldnt not find balance information to get a rough idea of how the plane was balanced. The type of balance on a plane does have effects on performance.

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N773C.html (The aircraft)

http://www.aopa.org/airports/U63 (The airport)

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20120701X65804&key=1 (The NTSB link posted earlier)

http://personalpages.tdstelme.net/~westin/avtext/stn-108.txt (Closest thing I could find to performance data, the actual numbers are at the bottom)

http://vortex.plymouth.edu/cgi-bin/gen_statlog-u.cgi?ident=KSNT&pl=none2&yy=12&mm=06&dd=30 (Weather data at nearby Stanley)

http://skyvector.com (sectional chart data, type U63 into the search at the upper left, then make sure that "Salt Lake City" is selected in the upper right for the sectional chart)

>> ^Sagemind:

The pedestrian didn't even turn his head in the direction of the oncoming traffic.
Typical of what I hate about pedestrian law in Canada (and the US?) In 99% of cases the pedestrian has the right of way. If the car had hit him or other traffic. The driver would have been at fault.
This is mostly because the pedestrian would be long gone or because pedestrians don't have insurance so there is no one to sue for damages.

America is the same on pedestrian. There are many instances where morons would not bother to think first and look both ways before crossing the street. I hate the pedestrian law here too because of it. I'm willing to stop for a pedestrian if there is no traffic behind me. But if there is, I'm going to keep moving.

The worst kind of pedestrians are the ones staring at their little devices tapping and txt'ing away without a stupid care in the world. That is followed by the idiots who don't care for oncoming traffic and just walk out anyway.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

>> ^Thumper:

What! You must not be a gamer then. The mouse controls are fine. It allows for intense combat. This game is the arcade version of Skyrim. >> ^Jinx:
Actually a good game if you can get over:
a)The lowest mouse sensitivity setting is high. The default setting is unplayable and the highest setting is what I imagine putting a camera in a blender is like. ie, you spin so fast everything merges together
b)The camera is indeed pretty awful. Targetting can often be a chore in combat.
But I enjoyed the rest of it. I hate WoW with a passion, but I didn't find the quests samey or boring. The game starts off relatively challenging, but it does begin to get quite easy once you start unlocking perks. I was also a roque type character and unlocked a bow attack that fired 7 arrows in a spread. Like him I found that the most effective use of this was like a shotgun on bigger enemies. 7 arrows all hitting together was enough to almost 1 shot even the largest enemies. Still, combat is fun. I'd say the lore is fairly good if not a little cliched in parts. 8/10. Try it after you are disappointed by Mass Effect 3 (you will be, don't worry).


I hope you are sarcastic :3. I use a pretty low sensitivity because I play a lot of FPS games. Precision is more important that how many 360s you can do in a inch of mousemat. Ofc, precision isn't really important for KoA, but its still a pain having to use a sensitivity I am not used to simply because their control options aren't comprehensive enough. Not that KoA is alone in this, I am consistently amazed just how badly developers can fuck up their control schemes. Skyrim for instance had a bug that scaled y sensitivity based on your framerate... Then there is mouse acceleration that frequently can't be turned off without editing a config.txt somewhere. I actually pirate games just to look at the options menu.

I don't get how people can enjoy this when the AI is so terrible and the way they move is totally stupid it brakes all immersion in the game.

The combat system in the game is also terrible ( i know he was playing silly but when playing normaly its still rubish)



Untill AI is decent or they design the levels and spawning of characters around the fact that AI is shit then I have no motivation to play.

Muds and txt adventures play better and are more immersive than this even Doss based old school RPGs where you r in a dingoin and you just click left right forwards and backwards are more immmersive than this. simply because they are consistent and the parts that are gamey are abstract with no reference points in reality keeping the suspension of disbelief going.



I mean look how the tiger rotates on its back legs or how the skeletons are walking into walls or stood behind him doing nothing that shit happens constantly through the game, If the game cannot do real time combat properly then they should abstract it in a way that can work with today's technology.

allso why make a game thats largely bassed on hand to hand combat and then have a combat system that consists litraly of move forwards and click to atack and then move back to avoid getting hit. Granted they tried to put emphasis on a spell system to cover that up and give the player stuff to upgrade but combat using spells is hardly challenging and still mostly consists of simple attack retreat, It really says something when games like thief which came out in 1998 have a far superior core game play . More recently games like Mount & Blade: Warband show how its possable to have realy good hand to hand combat and the Warband mechanics would work especially well in a game like skyrim.

I guess the devs dont have to worry about the core game play becuse players are happy to put up with utter shit so long as there is X task to do and Y reward for it , Game play could be walking around clicking on hedges for all they care , so long as the graphics are nice and the environments are well made.

The Pirate Bay's view: http://static.thepiratebay.org/legal/sopa.txt

Actually - I haven't followed the content of SOPA very closely, but if my quick reading is correct, VideoSift could be banned just from me linking TPB if SOPA got up. Is that right?

Watch the entire episode of Q&A here.

And cringe as the dipshit Steve Fielding won't give a straight answer about his beliefs as he knows they are ridiculous.

>> ^marbles:
Then you wouldn’t need to quote other ideologies to make that point.

When people know things about general subjects they tend to reference general knowledge to simplify conversations. If I had known at the outset that you are adverse to knowing anything but your sacred ideology I would have just called you a religious wing-nut at the outset and been done with it. At this point I'm in for a pound, and I'm going to make sure you have at least heard something other than you navel gazing nonsense before I am through with you.

>> ^marbles:

Don’t feign ignorance. Marxism is based on the collective's right to the individual.


Okay, that clarifies a lot. You are actually arguing against an absurdist straw-man of any philosophy but your own. Please, since you are so keen on sourcing references, take a look at the manifesto, and tell me where you found that bit.

>> ^dgandhi:
Production does not come from anywhere, you might as well ask where blue comes from.

>> ^marbles:

Production comes from nowhere. Thanks for clearing that up.


Nice selective editing, I like how you completely ignored that your question as stated made no sense.

Okay, if you want to pretend you are six, fine. NON-OBJECTS CAN'T BE CREATED, "production" is not an object, it's a concept, it has no physicality, just like the color blue it can't come/go to or from anywhere. If stating that fact tweaks your ideology then your position is weaker than I thought.

>> ^marbles:

There’s no test needed, it’s inherent to human life. If I build a net, then I rightfully own it. If I catch fish with my net, then I rightfully own the fish.

Yes you keep saying this, saying things does not make them so.

When I say something is a fact, that means that I can clearly demonstrate it. You have failed to even acknowledge that demonstrating your truth claims is relevant to their accuracy. Given your bizarre aversion, what exactly do you mean when you claim something is a fact?

>> ^marbles:

Liberty is self-ownership. If you believe someone else can own you (e.g. selling yourself), then you don’t believe in liberty. Nice try though.

So you own yourself, but you are not allowed to sell what you own? I'm going to need you to define own if you are going to use it like that.

>> ^marbles:

No, I said you were wrong regardless of whether or not you accepted my property claims. And your current social contract is meaningless if you decide to violate my liberty.

You realize that this whole discussion is displayed above right? You used my current property arrangement as an argument that your property ideal is right, that argument fails to differentiate between property and all the other things my social contract covers. You were sloppy, so just suck it up and state your case.

Of course I know that your case, clearly stated, falls in on itself, I'm beginning to think that you know it too.

>> ^marbles:

Production doesn’t come from anywhere, remember? How about you prove this is true: If I steal something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me.


Since neither property nor theft have any meaning in the absence of social contract, all three claims are false because they require conditions to exist where they can not. This is not a problem for me, your problem is backing up the one of them you seem to think is true.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

>> ^shuac:

Why? Because touch is so unintuitive? How utterly retarded.


In its current form its retarded , but its the kind of thing that when refined and made main stream or affordable u find unexpected uses for it.

off the top of my head the bend button and flexiable screen could be good if its a phone that wraps around u arm when its in that position the phone would know its on your arm due to the bend button being pressed ,

maby if you had like small long screens that attached to u hand but over the top of u fingers so as u moved each finger it did certain things and also displayed as a screen on each finger.




the issue with these demos is they use current tech and known methods to demo them when in reality they will be used with something thats largely alain to what we use now.

Also Evan if it is retarded that wont necessarily stop it from catching on , look at justin bibers popularity , and the fact that people still happily pay 10p a message to send a txt massage ( not saying txt message or limited txt message is bad but paying 10p for under2kb of data is mental)

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^COriolanus:
Can any one provide a link for an opposing view?

The one I have been reading about is MOND
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOND
There is also the newer, or newer to me, QG unification theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity
I think there is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic rules of matter, energy, time and space. I don't have much evidence to support this idea. It might be the same problem Einstein had with QED that I have with dark matter, it's messy. It seems like we are creating something first because of the maths we have agreed are true instead of questioning the fundamental understanding. I compaire it to Quine's web of belief. I could be wrong, perhaps there is some wacky matter out there that behaves the exact opposite of real matter, is most of the stuff in the universe, and doesn't interact electromagnetically with our plane of existence...but it seems like reaching for straws.


It's wrong that Dark Matter is just some wacky thing created because of the maths. It is observed, through its gravitational interaction. Just because it doesn't interact electromagnetically doesn't mean it's invisible. It's also wrong that Dark Matter behaves the exact opposite of real matter. The Standard Model of particle physics is far from complete, and we already know of particles that interact through one force of nature and not through others. To posit a new fundamental particle that could fit the Dark Matter profile is not really that far fetched. There are even candidates obtained through Supersymmetry that may or may not provide the right answer. I don't find this messy at all, and frankly, Nature doesn't care if you think its rules are messy or not.

Also, if you don't like messiness, MOND is really not the right answer for you. Modified Newtonian Dynamics is an interesting concept with some interesting results for their own sake, and it may still ultimately prove correct. The idea that extrapolation from high gravitational fields to low ones might be unsound is something that should not be dismissed. But so far, the data are not in MOND's favour.

>> ^COriolanus:

Can any one provide a link for an opposing view?


The one I have been reading about is MOND

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

There is also the newer, or newer to me, QG unification theory

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

I think there is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic rules of matter, energy, time and space. I don't have much evidence to support this idea. It might be the same problem Einstein had with QED that I have with dark matter, it's messy. It seems like we are creating something first because of the maths we have agreed are true instead of questioning the fundamental understanding. I compaire it to Quine's web of belief. I could be wrong, perhaps there is some wacky matter out there that behaves the exact opposite of real matter, is most of the stuff in the universe, and doesn't interact electromagnetically with our plane of existence...but it seems like reaching for straws.