AWKWARD ZOMBIE

you guys have to remember that the main issue of landing in the water isn't surface tension, it's waves. unless you have a glass smooth body of water, it's nearly impossible to crash land and live. The waves will throw the plane once it makes contact.

D-vid wrote:Well, you're landing it, not crashing nose first into it.

exactly.

Yeah, surface tension means nothing considering it's relatively easy (for a skilled pilot that is) to pull off a land crash. But in water, aside from the waves, doesn't the plane itself sinking cause suction that pulls in people without flotation devices?

Either way, that's the reason it's big news when a pilot does a water landing with no casualties.

Stranaton wrote:you guys have to remember that the main issue of landing in the water isn't surface tension, it's waves. unless you have a glass smooth body of water, it's nearly impossible to crash land and live. The waves will throw the plane once it makes contact.

that was the first thing I said

Plus if you are needing to land in the ocean, it is safe to assume that something is awry and you are probably not going to have a good landing anyway

The flotation devices are just there because there'd be an uproar if they were taken away. In the past when planes were built differently and smaller they could actually land on the ocean, but modern planes are too megahuge to do it.

Madican wrote:doesn't the plane itself sinking cause suction that pulls in people without flotation devices?

Not sure what you are talking about here, in the event that a plane does land in the ocean it will stay afloat and the people will slide down little slides into rafts

Is being able to make farty noises by pressing my neck and shoulder together a valuable life skill

Madican wrote:Yeah, surface tension means nothing considering it's relatively easy (for a skilled pilot that is) to pull off a land crash. But in water, aside from the waves, doesn't the plane itself sinking cause suction that pulls in people without flotation devices?

Either way, that's the reason it's big news when a pilot does a water landing with no casualties.

planes don't sink when they are undamaged. they are boyant, it's actually required in the design.
planes crash into water because of a) smashing into the water from a system failure and b) landing in a manner that causes the water to engulf the craft (like hitting hard enough to create a wave or running head on into an existing wave)

A skilled pilot should be able to pull of an emergency landing even without motor. The plane becomes pretty much a glider then anyway, it's not like it would fall straight down once the motor's off. Anything really bad, like if one wing tears off or anything else you've seen in catastrophe movies would be hard to land no matter where.

Mythbusters (I know, popular science etc.) simulated a crash landing, which from the angle of their rig was more like a crash since it was nosefirst 45 degrees down, and even then people would survive. (With more or less bad leg injuries though).
So I'd say the problem is not landing on water itself, it's what happens afterwards.

just fly US Airways

I've recently read about an effect that if you're looking at the same kind of things for an extended period of time, you start questioning if it's correct.
I just had that effect on math homework. We're having boolean/propositional logic right now so I've been writing A B C and all those nice little connectors on multiple pages for the past hour and by the end I was writing so much stuff at the side to clarify what the hell I mean because of the feeling I'm not writing it correctly.

D-vid wrote:I've recently read about an effect that if you're looking at the same kind of things for an extended period of time, you start questioning if it's correct.

Is that like when you say a word so much it stops sounding like a word?

Yeah, or looking at the same word so long that you start thinking it's spelled wrongly.

D-vid wrote:wrongly.

Today was mother's day and no celebration in any form was given

Can anyone tell me what the red and black bits on the back of this are? Like what that connector type is called and how easy it is to run RCA speakers off of it?
Looking for a cheap alternative to my busted RE-7671, and assuming I can actually use it this out to do the trick.

I remember those.
Im gonna be speaking retard through this entire explanation.
If you have two speakers and there is a cord coming out and it has two separate wires in the cord and no connector thing on the end to plug the speakers into anything you can use those.
What you do is get a wire cutter and expose a but if the wires in the cord. Then out one side of the same cord into a red and black port thingy.
Do it for the left and right speaker and it should work. might need to switch witch wire is red or black.

That's Ashton Kutcher, btw. I'm posting mainly because Oh my fucking god he looks exactly like my brother, right down to the sideburns.