The Nice People Thread, No.16: A Universe of Niceness.

ivyleaf

hjd wrote: »

I was on the phone to a florist today ordering flowers for a funeral on Tuesday. We went through all the details and confirmed it, then at the end she said "I do hope you have a wonderful day on Tuesday" which struck me as rather strange. Not something I would have said in that context, and I am also known for opening my mouth too fast and not controlling the words which come out.
Funerals on two consecutive Tuesdays, not generally my idea of fun.

So sorry, hjd. I hope they go as well as funerals can.
I bet the florist just automatically said what she usually says when she's taking an order for wedding flowers!

Lovely to "see" you, Spirit and CK

PN Well done for taking that step

Sue Josh sounds amazing and a huge asset to any band! I hope James's company can accommodate him, if he would prefer to stay there?

vivatifosi

Hey CK, will you be supporting Georgia and/or Cyprus this year?

vivatifosi

Anyone else had really weird weather today. Started with pouring rain, then high winds and bright warm sun, then when I went to put something in the dustbin it snowed.

zagubov

p and m up in the far north exoerienced bad snow sleet and rain I saw in the news that inner Herts had bad weather.

Down in S London/Surrey borders all we had was severe wind, which sounds like a medical condition requiring charcoal biscuits.

SingleSue

Just rain and wind and then sun and wind here.

GDB2222

Out of interest will people be avoiding flying 737 Max 8 until we know why two have crashed?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

GDB2222 wrote: »

Out of interest will people be avoiding flying 737 Max 8 until we know why two have crashed?

Even from the limited and basic information we have to date I'm fairly confident the cause, whilst not yet confirmed, is highly likely to be a similar issue to the last one.

Explained in some detail here...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=75568424&postcount=27

And I wouldn't be comfortable flying in one at the moment, particularly not one from a newer or developing airline, that may have a 'still evolving' training and safety culture.

GDB2222

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Even from the limited and basic information we have to date I'm fairly confident the cause, whilst not yet confirmed, is highly likely to be a similar issue to the last one.

Explained in some detail here...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=75568424&postcount=27

And I wouldn't be comfortable flying in one at the moment, particularly not one from a newer or developing airline, that may have a 'still evolving' training and safety culture.

I read your other post with interest. The odd thing is that I saw a photo of the crash site, and I thought it looked like a much, much deeper hole than one usually sees. That's completely explained by the plane automatically increasing its nose down attitude by 2.5 degrees every ten seconds and refusing to respond to standard controls. After a couple of minutes, it's heading into the ground at a 30 degree angle if it started off level. Who could possibly have signed that off?

chris_m

GDB2222 wrote: »

I read your other post with interest. The odd thing is that I saw a photo of the crash site, and I thought it looked like a much, much deeper hole than one usually sees. That's completely explained by the plane automatically increasing its nose down attitude by 2.5 degrees every ten seconds and refusing to respond to standard controls. After a couple of minutes, it's heading into the ground at a 30 degree angle if it started off level. Who could possibly have signed that off?

I don't think it's meant to drop the nose by 2.5 degrees for ten seconds, then another 2.5 degrees for another ten seconds, then, etc., etc.

I think it's meant to restore level flight (or relinquish control back to the pilot) after each ten second spell and will only reactivate if it subsequently detects another stall risk.

Of course, if the pilots don't or can't gain altitude before the next stall warning, or if the stall warnings are erroneous, then it'll keep getting lower and lower until it runs out of sky

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

GDB2222 wrote: »

Who could possibly have signed that off?

Well technically the FAA when they issued the type approval.

However we may be approaching a point of technological advancement where it becomes increasingly hard for regulators to fully understand the things they're approving.