rangerx

49 minutes ago, iNow said:

Well, this all but renders it final:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates-senate-rejects-democrats/story?id=68410003

So much for country over party. 

They MAY allow a vote to POTENTIALLY allow witnesses and documents AFTER both sides have argued their cases (basically, the exact opposite of every other court case ever)

Jay Sekulo is a lying POS, yet the Republicans walk in lockstep.

Vlad is laughing in the world's face. His plan is unfolding "perfectly".

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Nothing has been happening.

Moscow Mitch prevaricated his assertion it would be a Clinton style proceeding.

Then of course there's Alan Dershowitz claiming to be the Constitution's attorney, when no such thing exists. Not to mention his glaring double standard on what rises to the level of impeachment.

These dudes put the constitution on trial, because they're too cowardly to address the fact issues at face value. That point seems to be gaining some traction with voters.

I said it before and I will say it again. Only the Republicans can save this disaster from unfolding into a constitutional crisis, but they deliberately lack the fortitude and willingness in the manner capitulated to in the Watergate fiasco for the sake of the union, not their re-elections.

*crickets*

Are we so gas lit nowadays that an impending constitutional crisis is apethetic?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/17/us/politics/trump-impeachment-lawyers-starr-dershowitz.html

This will be the greatest display of Republican hypocrisy in human history.

Let's start with a Trump quote:

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-called-ken-starr-freak-lunatic-disaster-impeachment-2020-1

Okay, this is interesting.

Near straight out departure. Everything set according to the plan for departure except one thing. I set the autopilot 8000 instead of the assigned flight level.

That way both engines drop to idle at the last known point of flight. In a steep climb out shortly after takeoff,  it will stall quickly. (so long as you don't disengage and put the nose down like a good pilot would)

Ok, takeoff roll normal, vr, rotate, climb, gear, atc transition (listening), flaps, request flight following, got squawk 0167, (6200ft) acknowledged radar contact (6800 ft) Engines idled, wings stalled under 2 seconds. Crashed 10 miles from the airport.

I was set to 1200, so I expect ATC saw me.

I will try it again on takeoff, with the transponder set at something else.

BRB

Ran the scenario a couple of times. A little quicker on the draw with ATC, managed the squawk from 5400 to 5900ft.  It's a simulator, it didn't mind the transponder in the off position. ATC carried on as usual. I turned it on and entered the code. Acknowledged ATC.

Requested post takeoff checklist from second officer, but didn't get to start. I'm not sure, but expect transition would be shortly thereafter... around 8500, so they didn't get that far. You never (or at least not supposed to) respond to ATC without doing checklists first. The black box and CVR, if serviceable will have that data.

This was a "Sully" moment for the pilots, except with parts of the plane missing and who knows what else. Seems they tried none the less. Heroic, really.

In the hypothetical, if it were a transponder issue, it probably occurred or was already failed to TX, on the ground and missed in the pre-flight checks. Entry error or no signal would be borne out after take off when they ID the new squawk code. If the SAM was expecting 1200 someone got an itchy finger?

Scary thought.


 

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Do you fly, Rangerx ?
I'm more into the military hardware than the commercial side.
But you seem quite knowledgeable regarding commercial instrument flying.

Yes, since 1995. Only endorsed for VFR single engine, no tail draggers (yet), low hours.

I fly a lot of VOR/IFR/ILS in the sim though and do a lot of 3D model/reskin and advanced simulations.

I'm just doing the flight plan for the Ukraine flight as we speak. I grabbed the texture too and tweaked the ID's to the scenario.

Just getting clearance from ground to push from Stand 118 as Flight 752 for taxi to Runway 29R. Six and a half hours late.

BRB...

I should add to "nobody will see it". Actually ATC will see it, just not under any assigned code.

When they assign the code, the aircraft returns the assigned code for ID purposes as well as carrier/flight number/course/alt/speed info (from radar).

This where incorrect codes or inoperative transponders on civil airlines can get into trouble. You have to go out of your way to change the settings, because the moment a pilot confirms a squawk code, ATC requests affirmation of the position as they see it on radar before completing a flight following.

Let's say the pilot turned off the transponder. I'm not sure you can actually do that on a modern jetliner. I'm pretty sure it comes on with the flight computer as opposed to a separate unit in the radio stack of a small plane. Okay, perhaps it failed to transmit kind of scenario. ATC would still see the plane as a blip, but no ID parameters. They'd likely already know the ID and ask accordingly for a failure or incorrect setting.

I suppose, if the 737 transponder operated correctly through the after takeoff checklist then failed shortly thereafter, they could have inadvertently deceived the SAM site. If there were flaws or errors in that system, heaven forbid...

Interesting thought.

I'm going to run this scenario on the flight sim. When departures transitions me to flight center, I'll shut down or otherwise alter the squawk code (to anything other than 1200)

We'll see what center has to say about that?

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Somewhat naive question...but what stops a less than fully scrupulous military aircraft/drone/missile from squawking mode 3 as if a civil airliner, assuming they are checked mode 3?

ATC assigns a squawk code then tracks the aircraft using that code. It's pointless to merely enter an unassigned code because no one will see it.

And different modes means a different frequency and signal parameters as to be distinct from each other.

35 minutes ago, zapatos said:

No chance they could have erred with their transponder codes? Wouldn't make them 100% at fault but it could have contributed. And how do you know until you investigate?

A misreported squawk code would make them 50% at fault.

The whole "imminence" thing seems to be collapsing on itself.

Given how they've dropped the ball on that re-visitation, there's little if no other reason to not notify the gang of eight other than to be fascists.

 

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

US Intelligence just confirmed it was shot down by a missile, seemingly originating from Iran.

Which one? The Deep State one or the other one?

28 minutes ago, iNow said:

This won’t be happening. There was a bipartisan briefing with Trumps teams and key reps from congress today that left officials on both sides of the aisle pissed of and disappointed. 
 

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/8/21057344/trump-congress-iran-intelligence-briefing-soleimani

 

All Trump could do was blame Obama.

Target of opportunity. Not imminent threat.

In other words, an assassination.

6 hours ago, MigL said:

Reports of a Ukrainian Airlines 737 crash in Tehran.
180 passengers on board.

63 from Canada

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iran-ukraine-air-crash-canadians-tehran-1.5418610?fbclid=IwAR0tbaUXV0Ge3mWP2zYPbeZ7ZFkjRGR1qKzpEFxn00Ci_uuA7ISO2Im-Yk0

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I would think so. Unless they are responding to imminent threats...and even then the "gang of eight" should be notified, should they not?

Indeed they should and of course, imminent threats command special attention.

That said, though we know Soleimani is a bad guy, imminence is yet to be disclosed.

Good governance provides for that, if not arranged prior to the undertaking but near immediate after execution to follow up.

I want to see hard evidence of imminence. You'd think if they had it, they be blowing their horns at a deafening db.

And I'm talking about a tangible conspiracy and paper trail against the USA, not some amateur appointee's opinion.

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I don't know any strict definition. But I know they are clearly acts of violence.

Do you think it might be prudent to discuss this with congress?

12 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I wouldn't have expected missiles to have been launched from Iranian soil (if in fact they were...other reports say they came from 10K / 6 miles away. Iran is obviously further than that from Al-Assad Airbase)

Soon we'll know, but I suffixed an additional question.

Is the Iranian "response" and act of war in response to an act of war?

Seems to me we have a war going on here. A unilateral one as far as the US goes at this point.

15 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Obviously in response.

What did you expect? Or the very least a response to what?

An act of war?

1 minute ago, iNow said:

To Raiders credit, he was not blaming Obama, but was instead trying to make sure I (or those who lean left more broadly) was not applying double standards. He and you are aligned on this point. 

Yeah, it wasn't directed at Raider, who's point stands. It was in the broader sense that the discussion invariably ends up there. For distraction, and little else.

I'm sure after Trump's gone, his antics will resurface and in typical fashion, Republicans will dismiss it as ancient history or in otherwise revisionist form.
 

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

If we can agree it was something in between, then perhaps we can also agree to move on beyond this silliness.

Blaming Obama is the default position of Republicans. It has nothing to do with the reality of the day, accountability for unlawful acts or actual governance.

Obama drone bad, Trump drone good.

Just another day for double standards.

4 hours ago, iNow said:

More broadly... He’s held congress in contempt for quite some time and IMO he’s basically trolling them by suggesting he met his obligation to notify them in writing by tweeting about it.

Trolling is one thing, but notifications (no less threats) of war might be a violation of Twitter's terms of service.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Funny how a country like Iran burns off enough natural gas ( byproduct of their oil extraction, called flaring ) to supply a small country, yet, can claim with a straight face, that it needs home-grown nuclear technology for reasons other than warfare.

I agree flaring gas is isn't a good thing (no less in Alberta wink wink) Nuclear power isn't a good option if it doesn't supplant carbon.Skeptical or not and irrespective of any outcome, at least they had a deal where Iran claimed it wouldn't build bombs, but IMPOTUS tore up that deal to spite Obama and little else. A lot of legal authority (such as it is) was lost there. All the while with no discernible diplomatic plan in place. Still none. When pieces are missing or things are not otherwise "perfectly" upright, it's probably a good idea to get an okay from congress. If the target was a determined as his belligerence, I'm sure they'd have approved in a heart beat. But no, he's got be a dick tater.

War or not, it won't end well.

That said, it likely won't end.

11 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

But he got a bright idea, just call it “locker room talk” meaning it was a tall tale, and it's all good.  Then it’s no big deal, just idle tall tales.  The problem is that locker room talk is more likely honest confessions.   Many Trump supporters were probably satisfied with that explanation.

While that incident occurred, Trump was engaged in a contract with ABC. He was being transported in a bus, chartered by ABC and they were proceeding to a studio for a shoot. He obviously showed up for work when he boarded that bus, because it was (at least partially) filled with producers and their assistants, sound crew, driver, makeup etc.

It was in the workplace. It's not like that goes against gossip between work mates at idle times, but trash talking while miked up and representing broader interests is a really stupid thing to do.

19 hours ago, MigL said:

But isn't this the point of the whole discussion so far ?
The whole case is open to interpretation.

The Democrats in Congress will interpret it one way, and vote to impeach.
The Senate will interpret it differently, and the impeachment will fail.

I suppose the ultimate interpretation is by you, American voters, next November.
Will this process have swayed enough voters to turn some Republicans off D Trump ?
Or will the process have alienated some Democrats or other non-Trump supporters ?
Will the average voter even remember this after all the other sh*t the election campaign will likely stir up ?

Thanks for pointing out I was in the wrong thread. I quoted zap, but will quote you here instead.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/17/politics/read-trump-impeachment-letter-to-house-democrats/index.html

This reads like an ultimatum to Republicans to toe the line.

The failure to disassociate one's self from the reality of the impeachment trial is a vote for Democrats, by this standard.

That's what killed Nixon. Republicans came to their senses. They have no such fortitude these days, or at least not yet.

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

Wrong thread !

Ooops. I'll repost to the other.