Libro de Visitas

Hermantok

22 Jan 2025 - 12:26 pm

A year ago today, things went from bad to worse for Boeing
kraken войти

At 5 p.m. PT on January 5, 2024, Boeing seemed like a company on the upswing. It didn’t last. Minutes later, a near-tragedy set off a full year of problems.

As Alaska Airlines flight 1282 climbed to 16,000 feet in its departure from Portland, Oregon, a door plug blew out near the rear of the plane, leaving a gaping hole in the fuselage. Phones and clothing were ripped away from passengers and sent hurtling into the night sky. Oxygen masks dropped, and the rush of air twisted seats next to the hole toward the opening.
https://kra26c.cc
kraken market
Fortunately, those were among the few empty seats on the flight, and the crew got the plane on the ground without any serious injuries. The incident could have been far worse — even a fatal crash.

Not much has gone right for Boeing ever since. The company has had one misstep after another, ranging from embarrassing to horrifying. And many of the problems are poised to extend into 2025 and perhaps beyond.

The problems were capped by another Boeing crash in South Korea that killed 179 people on December 29 in what was in the year’s worst aviation disaster. The cause of the crash of a 15-year old Boeing jet flown by Korean discount carrier Jeju Air is still under investigation, and it is quite possible that Boeing will not be found liable for anything that led to the tragedy.
But unlike the Jeju crash, most of the problems of the last 12 months have clearly been Boeing’s fault.

And 2024 was the sixth straight year of serious problems for the once proud, now embattled company, starting with the 20-month grounding of its best selling plane, the 737 Max, following two fatal crashes in late 2018 and early 2019, which killed 346 people.

Still the outlook for 2024 right before the Alaska Air incident had been somewhat promising. The company had just achieved the best sales month in its history in December 2023, capping its strongest sales year since 2018.

It was believed to be on the verge of getting Federal Aviation Administration approval for two new models, the 737 Max 7 and Max 10, with airline customers eager to take delivery. Approvals and deliveries of its next generation widebody, the 777X, were believed to be close behind. Its production rate had been climbing and there were hopes that it could be on the verge of returning to profitability for the first time since 2018.

Harrysic

22 Jan 2025 - 12:25 pm

Most plane crashes are ‘survivable’
Љракен тор
First, the good news. “The vast majority of aircraft accidents are survivable, and the majority of people in accidents survive,” says Galea. Since 1988, aircraft — and the seats inside them — must be built to withstand an impact of up to 16G, or g-force up to 16 times the force of gravity. That means, he says, that in most incidents, “it’s possible to survive the trauma of the impact of the crash.”

For instance, he classes the initial Jeju Air incident as survivable — an assumed bird strike, engine loss and belly landing on the runway, without functioning landing gear. “Had it not smashed into the concrete reinforced obstacle at the end of the runway, it’s quite possible the majority, if not everyone, could have survived,” he says.

The Azerbaijan Airlines crash, on the other hand, he classes as a non-survivable accident, and calls it a “miracle” that anyone made it out alive.
https://kra26c.cc
kraken darknet
Most aircraft involved in accidents, however, are not — as suspicion is growing over the Azerbaijan crash — shot out of the sky.

And with modern planes built to withstand impacts and slow the spread of fire, Galea puts the chances of surviving a “survivable” accident at at least 90%.

Instead, he says, what makes the difference between life and death in most modern accidents is how fast passengers can evacuate.

Aircraft today must show that they can be evacuated in 90 seconds in order to gain certification. But a theoretical evacuation — practiced with volunteers at the manufacturers’ premises — is very different from the reality of a panicked public onboard a jet that has just crash-landed.
Galea, an evacuation expert, has conducted research for the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) looking at the most “survivable” seats on a plane. His landmark research, conducted over several years in the early 2000s, looked at how passengers and crew behaved during a post-crash evacuation, rather than looking at the crashes themselves. By compiling data from 1,917 passengers and 155 crew involved in 105 accidents from 1977 to 1999, his team created a database of human behavior around plane crashes.

His analysis of which exits passengers actually used “shattered many myths about aircraft evacuation,” he says. “Prior to my study, it was believed that passengers tend to use their boarding exit because it was the most familiar, and that passengers tend to go forward. My analysis of the data demonstrated that none of these myths were supported by the evidence.”

Flunaav

22 Jan 2025 - 12:24 pm

What is the best pharmacy eCommerce vilitra 60.

Eugenesat

22 Jan 2025 - 11:56 am

The survivors of recent crashes were sitting at the back of the plane. What does that tell us about airplane safety?
кракен даркнет

Look at the photos of the two fatal air crashes of the last two weeks, and amid the horror and the anguish, one thought might come to mind for frequent flyers.

The old frequent-flyer adage is that sitting at the back of the plane is a safer place to be than at the front — and the wreckage of both Azerbaijan Airlines flight 8243 and Jeju Air flight 2216 seem to bear that out.
https://kra26c.cc
kraken даркнет
The 29 survivors of the Azeri crash were all sitting at the back of the plane, which split into two, leaving the rear half largely intact. The sole survivors of the South Korean crash, meanwhile, were the two flight attendants in their jumpseats in the very tail of the plane.

So is that old adage — and the dark humor jokes about first and business class seats being good until there’s a problem with the plane — right after all?

In 2015, TIME Magazine reporters wrote that they had combed through the records of all US plane crashes with both fatalities and survivors from 1985 to 2000, and found in a meta-analysis that seats in the back third of the aircraft had a 32% fatality rate overall, compared with 38% in the front third and 39% in the middle third.

Even better, they found, were middle seats in that back third of the cabin, with a 28% fatality rate. The “worst” seats were aisles in the middle third of the aircraft, with a 44% fatality rate.
But does that still hold true in 2024?

According to aviation safety experts, it’s an old wives’ tale.

“There isn’t any data that shows a correlation of seating to survivability,” says Hassan Shahidi, president of the Flight Safety Foundation. “Every accident is different.”

“If we’re talking about a fatal crash, then there is almost no difference where one sits,” says Cheng-Lung Wu, associate professor at the School of Aviation of the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Ed Galea, professor of fire safety engineering at London’s University of Greenwich, who has conducted landmark studies on plane crash evacuations, warns, “There is no magic safest seat.”

Jeromealern

22 Jan 2025 - 11:51 am

The survivors of recent crashes were sitting at the back of the plane. What does that tell us about airplane safety?
kraken войти

Look at the photos of the two fatal air crashes of the last two weeks, and amid the horror and the anguish, one thought might come to mind for frequent flyers.

The old frequent-flyer adage is that sitting at the back of the plane is a safer place to be than at the front — and the wreckage of both Azerbaijan Airlines flight 8243 and Jeju Air flight 2216 seem to bear that out.
https://kra26c.cc
kraken сайт
The 29 survivors of the Azeri crash were all sitting at the back of the plane, which split into two, leaving the rear half largely intact. The sole survivors of the South Korean crash, meanwhile, were the two flight attendants in their jumpseats in the very tail of the plane.

So is that old adage — and the dark humor jokes about first and business class seats being good until there’s a problem with the plane — right after all?

In 2015, TIME Magazine reporters wrote that they had combed through the records of all US plane crashes with both fatalities and survivors from 1985 to 2000, and found in a meta-analysis that seats in the back third of the aircraft had a 32% fatality rate overall, compared with 38% in the front third and 39% in the middle third.

Even better, they found, were middle seats in that back third of the cabin, with a 28% fatality rate. The “worst” seats were aisles in the middle third of the aircraft, with a 44% fatality rate.
But does that still hold true in 2024?

According to aviation safety experts, it’s an old wives’ tale.

“There isn’t any data that shows a correlation of seating to survivability,” says Hassan Shahidi, president of the Flight Safety Foundation. “Every accident is different.”

“If we’re talking about a fatal crash, then there is almost no difference where one sits,” says Cheng-Lung Wu, associate professor at the School of Aviation of the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Ed Galea, professor of fire safety engineering at London’s University of Greenwich, who has conducted landmark studies on plane crash evacuations, warns, “There is no magic safest seat.”

Donaldodoca

22 Jan 2025 - 11:48 am

Most plane crashes are ‘survivable’
kraken onion
First, the good news. “The vast majority of aircraft accidents are survivable, and the majority of people in accidents survive,” says Galea. Since 1988, aircraft — and the seats inside them — must be built to withstand an impact of up to 16G, or g-force up to 16 times the force of gravity. That means, he says, that in most incidents, “it’s possible to survive the trauma of the impact of the crash.”

For instance, he classes the initial Jeju Air incident as survivable — an assumed bird strike, engine loss and belly landing on the runway, without functioning landing gear. “Had it not smashed into the concrete reinforced obstacle at the end of the runway, it’s quite possible the majority, if not everyone, could have survived,” he says.

The Azerbaijan Airlines crash, on the other hand, he classes as a non-survivable accident, and calls it a “miracle” that anyone made it out alive.
https://kra26c.cc
kraken зеркало
Most aircraft involved in accidents, however, are not — as suspicion is growing over the Azerbaijan crash — shot out of the sky.

And with modern planes built to withstand impacts and slow the spread of fire, Galea puts the chances of surviving a “survivable” accident at at least 90%.

Instead, he says, what makes the difference between life and death in most modern accidents is how fast passengers can evacuate.

Aircraft today must show that they can be evacuated in 90 seconds in order to gain certification. But a theoretical evacuation — practiced with volunteers at the manufacturers’ premises — is very different from the reality of a panicked public onboard a jet that has just crash-landed.
Galea, an evacuation expert, has conducted research for the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) looking at the most “survivable” seats on a plane. His landmark research, conducted over several years in the early 2000s, looked at how passengers and crew behaved during a post-crash evacuation, rather than looking at the crashes themselves. By compiling data from 1,917 passengers and 155 crew involved in 105 accidents from 1977 to 1999, his team created a database of human behavior around plane crashes.

His analysis of which exits passengers actually used “shattered many myths about aircraft evacuation,” he says. “Prior to my study, it was believed that passengers tend to use their boarding exit because it was the most familiar, and that passengers tend to go forward. My analysis of the data demonstrated that none of these myths were supported by the evidence.”

Dannyemume

22 Jan 2025 - 11:43 am

A year ago today, things went from bad to worse for Boeing
kraken зеркало

At 5 p.m. PT on January 5, 2024, Boeing seemed like a company on the upswing. It didn’t last. Minutes later, a near-tragedy set off a full year of problems.

As Alaska Airlines flight 1282 climbed to 16,000 feet in its departure from Portland, Oregon, a door plug blew out near the rear of the plane, leaving a gaping hole in the fuselage. Phones and clothing were ripped away from passengers and sent hurtling into the night sky. Oxygen masks dropped, and the rush of air twisted seats next to the hole toward the opening.
https://kra26c.cc
кракен вход
Fortunately, those were among the few empty seats on the flight, and the crew got the plane on the ground without any serious injuries. The incident could have been far worse — even a fatal crash.

Not much has gone right for Boeing ever since. The company has had one misstep after another, ranging from embarrassing to horrifying. And many of the problems are poised to extend into 2025 and perhaps beyond.

The problems were capped by another Boeing crash in South Korea that killed 179 people on December 29 in what was in the year’s worst aviation disaster. The cause of the crash of a 15-year old Boeing jet flown by Korean discount carrier Jeju Air is still under investigation, and it is quite possible that Boeing will not be found liable for anything that led to the tragedy.
But unlike the Jeju crash, most of the problems of the last 12 months have clearly been Boeing’s fault.

And 2024 was the sixth straight year of serious problems for the once proud, now embattled company, starting with the 20-month grounding of its best selling plane, the 737 Max, following two fatal crashes in late 2018 and early 2019, which killed 346 people.

Still the outlook for 2024 right before the Alaska Air incident had been somewhat promising. The company had just achieved the best sales month in its history in December 2023, capping its strongest sales year since 2018.

It was believed to be on the verge of getting Federal Aviation Administration approval for two new models, the 737 Max 7 and Max 10, with airline customers eager to take delivery. Approvals and deliveries of its next generation widebody, the 777X, were believed to be close behind. Its production rate had been climbing and there were hopes that it could be on the verge of returning to profitability for the first time since 2018.

Dannyorago

22 Jan 2025 - 09:09 am

deep web links best darknet markets https://github.com/darknetmarkets24/darknet-markets - darknet markets

Nudesbuddies

22 Jan 2025 - 07:27 am

https://nudesbuddies.com

Josephglurf

22 Jan 2025 - 06:47 am

Процессуальный хакинг: адвокаты потребкооператива посчитали обращение с УПК вольным
Потепевший Болян
12-18 октября в Санкт-Петербурге состоялись девять судов первой инстанции по рассмотрению ходатайств руководителя следственной группы ГСУ ГУ МВД России по городу Санкт-Петербургу и Ленинградской области полковника юстиции А. Н. Винокурова о продлении мер пресечения обвиняемым на новые три месяца — до 19 января 2024 года — в связи с общим продлением срока предварительного расследования до середины февраля 2024 года.

Четыре заседания состоялись в Санкт-Петербургском городском суде — по продлению ареста гражданам, у которых еще в середине августа превышен предельный срок содержания под стражей — полтора года: Анне Высоцкой, Александре Григорьевой, Елене Соловьевой и Михаилу Измайлову. Пять заседаний прошло в Приморском районном суде города Санкт-Петербурга: по продлению "стражи" Альмире Гильберт, Дмитрию Мазанову, Анатолию Наливану и Денису Шишко; по продлению домашнего ареста Вячеславу Выдрину. Мера пресечения в виде запрета определенных действий еще одному обвиняемому — Виктору Ивановичу Василенко, отцу основателя "Лайф-из-Гуд" и кооператива "Бест Вей" Романа Василенко, была избрана 23 марта на весь срок предварительного расследования.

Все ходатайства были судьями удовлетворены, при этом работа следствия во многих случаях подвергались ими критике. И во второй инстанции (а по всем девяти судебным постановлениям адвокатами поданы апелляции) сохранение мер пресечения не будет для следственной группы простой задачей.

Следствие завершено?
Формально предварительное расследование вышло на финишную прямую в июне, так как в августе истекал предельный срок содержания под стражей четверых обвиняемых: Высоцкой, Григорьевой, Соловьевой и Измайлова. Срок следственных действий был согласно постановлению заместителя начальника Следственного департамента МВД России генерал-майора юстиции А. Н. Вохмянина ограничен июлем, а общий срок предварительного расследования, включающий и процессуальные действия после завершения следственных, — серединой октября. Но в октябре генерал Вохмянин издал постановление о продлении общего срока предварительного расследования до середины февраля 2024 года, в связи с тем, что следственная группа не смогла завершить процессуальные действия — ознакомление обвиняемых с материалами дела и составление обвинительного заключения для передачи уголовного дела в суд для рассмотрения по существу.

Продление объяснялось в судах ознакомлением обвиняемых с материалами уголовного дела, в котором 210 томов. Однако еще перед первым июльским продлением "стражи" в связи с ознакомлением с материалами уголовного дела возникли две процессуальные проблемы, которые не исчезли и в октябре.

Первая — по утверждению адвокатов обвиняемых, пропущен этап ознакомления с материалами дела гражданских истцов и гражданских ответчиков, то есть сам переход к ознакомлению обвиняемых был незаконен. Следовательно, необходимо было вернуться на предыдущий этап, отпустив обвиняемых из-под стражи, тем более что следственные действия завершены.

Вторая — все обвиняемые до одного отказались знакомиться с материалами дела из-за грубых процессуальных нарушений, допущенных при завершении следственных действий в июне. Завершение следственных действий проводилось, как говорят адвокаты, в пожарном порядке, с грубыми процессуальными нарушениями. Обвиняемым, по утверждению адвокатов, дали в среднем полчаса на прочтение более чем 70-страничных постановлений о привлечении в качестве обвиняемых — большинство успело прочитать не более 20 страниц; отказались провести допросы после предъявления обвинений, на которых настаивали обвиняемые и т. д. В связи с этими нарушениями адвокаты обращались в Управление Следственного комитета России по городу Санкт-Петербургу по признакам должностных преступлений со стороны следственной группы.

Следствие, поясняют адвокаты причины этих действий следственной группы, в конце весны — начале лета сего года оказалось в цейтноте. Оно, по убеждению адвокатов, всеми силами стремилось не выпустить обвиняемых, что обязано было бы сделать, если бы следственные действия были продлены или точно выполнен алгоритм, определенный УПК для завершения предварительного расследования.

Основанием для оставления под стражей могло быть только начало ознакомления обвиняемых с материалами дела, и потому следствие, по оценке адвокатов, начало заниматься процессуальным хакингом: сначала с нарушениями провело предъявление обвинений в окончательной редакции, а затем заявило, что никто из гражданских истцов и ответчиков не изъявил желания знакомиться с материалами дела.

Отказались знакомиться?
Последнее утверждение, говорят адвокаты, не соответствует действительности. Адвокатам известен как минимум один из гражданских истцов, который намеревался ознакомиться с материалами дела, — его фамилия называлась в судах.

Что же касается гражданских ответчиков, то документально подтверждено, что намерение ознакомиться с материалами дела выражал кооператив "Бест Вей" — один из гражданских ответчиков. Причем этот статус был присвоен ему самой следственной группой: постановлением руководителя следственной группы А. Н. Винокурова кооператив стал гражданским ответчиком аж на 16 млрд рублей, причем следствие отказывалось представить истцов и их исковые требования.

Однако на недавнее заседание Приморского районного суда по аресту счетов кооператива на новый трехмесячный срок были принесены заявления от двух граждан, признанных следствием потерпевшими, о взыскании морального ущерба в объеме по одному миллиарду рублей на каждого из заявителей. Причем общий материальный ущерб, имеющийся в уголовном деле, на этих двоих граждан — менее миллиона.

Но, подчеркивают адвокаты, во-первых, оба требования о возмещении морального ущерба адресованы "виновным лицам", а не кооперативу. Следствие предлагает рассматривать кооператив как одно из этих лиц — речь идет, по версии следствия и лиц, признанных им потерпевшими, о невыполнении обязательств компанией "Гермес Менеджмент", а кооператив якобы был с этой компанией аффилирован, потому и должен отвечать по обязательствам этой иностранной компании, не имеющей активов в России. Во-вторых, отмечают адвокаты, требования о возмещении морального ущерба обосновываются общими словами о моральных страданиях и ухудшении здоровья, а должны, согласно законодательству, основываться на обстоятельствах причинения ущерба личным неимущественным правам.

Требования возмещения морального ущерба, подчеркивают адвокаты, призваны дать хоть какую-то материальную основу для ходатайства следствия об аресте почти 4 млрд рублей на счетах кооператива, притом что общий объем ущерба, названный в постановлениях о привлечении к ответственности в качестве обвиняемых, — 232 млн рублей.