Anyone else getting this error:

Video unavailable
This video contains content from NFL, who has blocked it from display on this website or application.

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.

Oh, my error.
Well, should I pull it?
I didn't see that on the mobile (small screen) I was using originally, but yes, on my laptop, there it is.

Trial and error? There's no user manual? Also, these guys don't exactly fill me with confidence with the way they do things.

I don't know about that.

A mathematician just saves himself a lot of trial and error and possibly years of harder work.

Sorry. Math has never been my strong suit. But thanks to Hollywood I was able to make it to the end of A Beautiful Mind.

it offers nothing new to a DJ's workflow while replacing one failure point with 2 new ones (battery and proprietary RF) and adds another stupid little box that's definitely going to cause problems during setup. DVSs are already a pain in the ass, have compromised sound quality, have latency issues, fail all the time (both user error and software/hardware errors) which is one of the many reasons why almost no touring DJs outside the turntablism/party rock world use them anymore. 99.9% of headliners and locals are USB/SD card and CDJ2000s.

the rane 12 is a much more robust and professional product that fills the same gap as this toy. also, i swear i saw this getting hyped around 5 years ago.

Or perhaps that they stopped her to accuse her of a crime, confront, and challenge her. None of your definitions include this "in error or being rude" inference you want to draw from it, that's your bias twisting definitions to suit your faux outrage.

I accosted my wife at the door with surprise plans to go out to dinner. I would use that sentence. I'm 48....not sure what generation you're from.

What nonsense are you spouting now...no one said she shouldn't have been accosted, you just take umbrage with the term for some reason, so decry the report as biased fake news or something.
Using the proper word to describe events is nothing like Fox making shit up. I don't have a clue what you mean.

Too late, I'm bald. That excuses me from having to watch any more Faux news. ;-)

Derp. That would be a Trump, not an Accosta.

Have fun with your persecution complex. I find you ridiculous and incapable of honest evaluation. Bye now.

If someone accosts another person, especially a stranger, they stop them or go up to them and speak to them in a way that seems rude or threatening.
[formal, disapproval]
A man had accosted me in the street. [VERB noun]
Synonyms: confront, challenge, address, stop More Synonyms of accost
COBUILD Advanced English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers
Word Frequency
accost in British
(əˈkɒst )
verb
1. (transitive)
to approach, stop, and speak to (a person), as to ask a question, accuse of a crime, solicit sexually, etc

It is suggesting the police were in error or were being rude at best.
This is how most people of my generation would understand the term.
So all I have to do is shed my clothes now and let things swing in the wind and I can do whatever I please, even coming within feet of the potus?
I don't think It would be a pretty picture/outcome for several reasons.
Biased reporting.
Just because Fox does it doesn't make it right.
You admit you can't even stand watching Fox for more than a couple of minutes.
You therefore have no ground to stand on.
You must endure it until your hair starts falling out as I have with CNN.
That's about 5 minutes.

Another definition might work as well.
The reporter constantly berated,grandstanded and hogged the microphone refusing to show an ounce of decorum.
He pulled an Acosta.

My apology for not knowing the terms here... it was just an error that would be fix for next time around.

Same thing goes around here with you too newtboy. It was some error make on the post ( as I am new in town).

I would expect someone like (old timers) yourself would have giving advice to some new people around here on their comment.

You've been here for longtime... although an encourage/advice would be wonderful from some like yourself instead of starting a feed war.

I've seen so much drama lately so wouldn't expect to see it again from someone like yourself.

The post is just an error for new person in town you know. If you were in the same spot, yours might have been different than this.

It's all good though, I can take a hit from a drama like this. Just you know.

Just as incorrect as always, at least you're consistent.

1) All those things aren't rights, voting is. To remove a constitutional right should take more that a racist whim or the lack of a document. That should end your argument right there, but rationality and understanding my country's constitution isn't your strong suit.

2) buying smokes or liquor....not if you're over 25 or know a place.

3) getting a job....nope, only to get non cash job or benefits

4) getting a gun....not if it's a private sale

5)renting a house....nope, not true at all

6)getting married....not common law or religious marriage

7) I doubt you have an honest clue what's required to receive public assistance, but it's not a driver's license

Poor people don't do much of the rest of what you mention, they use cash, don't own a car, and don't travel.

These false excuses for violating the constitution and placing targeted obstacles in the path of mostly minorities to keep them from voting are brought to you by the anti voting rights party, Republicans, every election since voter protection was lifted and they could legally go after minorities voting rights again.
Odd, they weren't an issue before the court removed the coverage formula, making it nigh impossible to enforce voting rights.....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965

...the reason being, had the right implied this was their plan, or even a concern of theirs, the supreme court would have ruled that the protections are still needed and not removed said "coverage formula", which would bar most states from enacting any voting requirements, as they had historically proven and been ruled to be blatantly racially motivated.

Since that decision, republican led legislatures have tried everything but reinstating literacy tests to disenfranchise minorities. Voter id laws and voter purges based on minor clerical errors (errors made by the same people who then decide the error makes the registration invalid, errors that happen 3/4 of the time to minorities in areas with less than 30% minority populations, while whites in the same areas are 1/4 the errors caught, but almost 3/4 the population) these purely Republican sponsored laws are blatantly targeting minorities because Republicans don't represent minorities so don't expect their votes.

I believe Dr Ford.

I think Kavanuagh is shit, if shit were worse than it is.

However, polygraphs have been proven to be junk science. The main reason being they are easily fooled, and can produce false positive results due to human error. Dr. Ford is a professor of psychology. If anyone could "beat" a polygraph...

I guess I'm just tired of people bringing up her polygraph like it means anything.

I fell asleep waiting for him to talk between errors..... Yawn.....

Actually, that was a typo which was overlooked. Originally it was, right to bar arms, but it was too late to correct as the Constitution had already gone press.

When asked about the error the founding fathers could only reply, "Oh, well."