Wurzel

Easter could be better than Xmas this year Northampton v Portsmouth 3pm Monday April 21st

Add me to the bugged by that list. I read it that it was programmed in before the final contact to turn at a certain later time/distance into the flight . No idea how they would know that from the ground but if they do why don't they know about any subsequent manoeuvres? Would programmed ones be detectable but not manual ones? Alternatively should we be reading it to mean it actually made the manoeuvre 12 minutes before last contact?

I'd be very interested to hear our resident pilots' opinions on this theory. In short, MH370 tailed another commercial flight close enough to appear as a single blip on radar, then turning off once in "friendly" territory. Is that possible? He seems to cover any objection to it that I can think of, even to why the collision warning wouldn't be activated in the tailed plane? How close would they need to be to achieve this? http://keithledgerwood.tumblr.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68-sq68

I didn't think Sturridge dived. He jumped the challenge, which didn't touch him, but he had to adjust to land. Without adjustment he would have landed on Vidic's outstretched leg, stumbled, penalty. With adjustment he managed to avoid him but foot landed inside of Vidic's and behind his own centre of balance leaving him no way of keeping his balance. No actual contact by an inch or so but he had no way of staying upright. Definitely should have had a 4th pen as well. Can't believe *any* team can have gone so long without conceding a home penalty. Begs the question were referees genuinely afraid of the Fergy factor and how many points did it earn them over the years?

WTF ?!?! Getting harder to tell the fantasy from the facts http://cangurel82.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/russia-says-it-is-being-kept-in-diego.html

So if I have this right primary radar simply detects there's something up there in that direction. Secondary radar , satellites and any other "receiver" can spot where something is but relies on information transmitted from the plane to identify which actual plane it is as opposed to an unidentified lump of metal up in the sky. Is that correct? If it is, next question, can those signals be duplicated and/or can the units transmitting those signals still transmit if not still attached to the plane.? Thinking along the lines of typical hollywood spy thriller when the tracking device is found and attached to a different vehicle, deliberately sending the searchers off in the wrong direction.

Can't help with the screen but I can do you some non-slip gloves

Cheers. Comprehensive answer . I did say it sounded plausible to a layman lol. Cross that one off the list of possibilities then.

But if I understood it correctly in this scenario it has lost the ability for the transponder and everything else to transmit and crew and passengers are unconscious.

Interesting theory which - to the layman - seems plausible. What if - I mean IF - it had lost ability to transmit and carried on on it's original course. How would the Chinese approach an unidentified unresponsive aircraft heading for Beijing? I'm guessing shoot first ask questions later. Could be why thee seem to be getting a bit arsey and keen to lay blame over the whole incident.

So not even half the distance from the reported "last known position" to where the military now say they tracked it to. Rule out my powerless glide theory then.

If a plane of that size is intact (i.e no explosion/fire) but loses all power is there anyway of still operating controls - rudder, ailerons etc- by wire or other mechanical means? And if so, if power was lost at 35000ft how long/far could it get in a controlled or uncontrolled glide?

They were booked for connecting flight from Beijing to (I think) Amsterdam, certainly Europe. Cheapest route available. And the stolen passports were European. So there last hurdle was Dutch passport control and they would be just 2 more illegal immigrants "lost" in the EU. Apparently nothing unusual about it at all. Now reading that Malaysian military tracked the flight doing a turn around the "official" last reported position then flying at much lower altitude in the opposite direction, finally losing contact in the Malacca Straits at 2.40. Malaysian airlines original announcements stated contact lost at 2.40 before altering it to 1.30 between Malaysia and Vietnam. All very strange.

His user name is irrelevant .. it'll be her. I'd even put money on it myself.

That should work then. Can't get her on a plane without getting her to the airport. Now you've made her even more scared of just going to the airport. I find the threat of terrorism more scary than mechanical failure, probably because you would never know about the latter until it happens yet it's easy to "spot" the one you think might be a "terrorist" before you board (yes I'm ashamed to say it's always the male Asian travelling alone - pleased to say I've been wrong every time) . But today I read that I am 1000 times more likely to be killed by a member of my own family than a terrorist - and I travel with them without even worrying about it! Perhaps I'll get a separate plane from them in future.

WG has already made my first point. Just shows how conflicting data can be, you have already misinterpreted "average". I appreciate that thos 37 years "could be considered" a trend, but my point is what is "normal". 134 years over the lifetime of the planet is meaningless. Could it be that those last 37 years are actually the norm and the previous 97 a bit cooler than usual and the last few decades are heading back to "normal" ? . I am assuming the 134 years consist of contemporary temperature recordings, so if the same data can be calculated for earlier than that it will be by using adifferent retrospective methods so can not be relied on to be directly comparable. I know all I am commenting on is one set of data and there is tons more out there, just trying to make a point that much of it is subject to the reader putting their own interpretation on the results. Does the upward trend in temperature follow a rise in atmospheric carbon? Or does a rise in atmospheric carbon follow a rise in temperature. ? I've seen data supporting both. Which should I believe?

As someone with a very open mind on the subject I can't argue with the point I assume you are making Based on exactly the same statement I couldn't argue with anyone who pointed out that many of the 97 years previous to 1976 were below average. Both say the same thing based on the facts given, yet one gives a totally different interpretation than the other.

Keegan's signing was a major coup and gained us loads of media interest but due to his short stay probably had the smallest on-field impact of any of them. Too early yet for Lallana, but then it's too early for Lambert as well and he's been up there a while.

So would I. Probably on the day it comes out. And sash is only one I've bought in probably 15 years or more.

Yes you do. If you live in the areas that previously allowed you to buy the red and blue tokens, it's the concessionary rate not the full rate that gets deducted from your card balance each time you use it.

I've been saying the same thing. League position is safe so give Chambers as much experience as possible now. Keep playing Shaw to boost up his fee. Clyne automatic choice for LB next year. Despite Shaw being the current media darling Clyne is the best full back out of the 3 of them, can't think of any other logical reason why he's spending time on the bench.

I am firmly in favour in making roads safer and easier for cyclists to use, but this doesn't do it.There is educating road users and then there is expecting them to ignore everything they've already learnt and do something completely different for one junction. Here's the "official" what to do video. [video=youtube_share;aAGXn2g7NmM]http://youtu.be/aAGXn2g7NmM Just about makes sense if, as shown, the right turning bike happens to be waiting at the original lights when they turn green. What happens if he goes through a split second before amber? The red car coming from the right as we look is going to find a cyclist doing an apparent u-turn right in front of him just as he pulls away. Or, assuming the bike has made it into position in time, the same car has a green light to turn left pulls away to do so and whilst checking his nearside mirror to make sure he doesn't take out any cyclists going straight across on his inside, fails to spot that the aforementioned right turning (now straight on) cyclist is so knackered from his previous speedy manoeuvre, or is simply slow in reacting having stopped, started, stopped and expected to start again, has failed to pull away as soon as lights turn green. They originally said there would be separate lights for cyclists which would change before the cars to give time to avoid this happening, but appear to have gone for straightforward traffic signals instead.

How ungrateful, spend £1.7m to help cyclists and they're still not happy. To be fair they have a point. The original plans looked ridiculous, but they haven't kept to them. What they've ended up with is at best confusing and at worst downright dangerous. How anyone consider that this is an improvement on the previous roundabout layout is beyond me. http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11041174.Bike_friendly_junction__has_made_things_worse__say_cyclists/?ref=var_0

I take no pleasure in saying it but ...... Well that didn't take long. http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11037366.Cyclist_hurt_on_new__bike_friendly_junction_/?ref=var_0

+10002